


sity of California 


hern Regional 
rary Facility 





S 


YOANN 





ui 


bl 
= 
= 
— 
sS 
ry 


a 
Es 


OMNIA 


ted 
= 
eo 
= 
=x 
m 


—_— 
oo 
S 
S 
+ 


> 
OSSTAINTIBS 


ANVI-I0 
ee 


in 


yaaa 


“STONY 


<REUIBRARY OC, 
“Hagsiv).30 


= 
= 
on 
ww 


SHOSANCELE 
CUSHIAINA- IBS 


A 
= 
ea 
i 
Ns 

= 

= 

° 

ats 


YOABWHAAY 


os 
Po 
= 
Ss 
= 
A 


LIBRARY 


+ 


NS 
Gseaninn-ayy 


fF, 


)4NWI-40 


* 


oe 


AELIBRARY-O¢ 


OAMHANA 


= 
in 
—_— 
z 


= 
e 
is 
« 
; 
s 


LOS-ANCELES, 
Tract 


sk 


W404 {l¥)-40° 
iV) . 


y: 
€ 


ORIENT Ww 


SHEUNIVERS/y, 


AS UIBRARYO¢, 
VIO 4TV}-40 


S 
Re . 


‘maonvsors® 
<ME — 


STOO 


$ 


SH OSANCELEY 
eae 





a ee 
rw oe 3 
z = 
ee 
“OAuvUaNTAY 


AE-LIBRARY.O¢ 
FAOIIVI-40° 


NS 
2 
g 
4 


LOS ANCELES, 


Z 
{ 
; 
{ 
: 

s 


Wy 


ne 


N3 


“03 HV)-40 


ag 
= 
So 
s 


na 


VERS/py. 


<ietn 


OAV A 


LOS-ANGELES; 


4 


QF-CALIFORy, 
YOAWWAANW 
aa 
Zan 


“USMANIND: n> 
RSs ANGELEs. 


USHAAINDAWS 


4. OF CALIFORY 
“/OKRWHSNS 


SELBRARYOs 


Wu03 W-30" 


Me 
= 
oO 

© 


SHEUNIVERS/, 
ar 
<QELIBRARY.Oe, 
% 4O4IIWI-40" 


3 OF CAL 


YO AMVETS 


Ss 


Bs 
5 
z= 
‘a 


SSSANIE 

pce 
SX lOSANGELES. 
lime. 


tank 
— ow 
S = 
= § 
USe3NINDIWS 


EELIBRARYO, 
WYOsNW)-30° 


OF 


snaonvsors™ 
<\iE- pals 


2 8 


<QELIBRARYOS, 
“Ny, AsO3NIVI-40 


STIONY: sors 


ANS LIBRARY Ox. 


aos) 40 
OF CALIFORY, 


Wy. 


<WEUNIVERS 
ane 


S 


70 AAV YAN 


git Wee 


N 


NALLIBRARY- Oe 
Wagan): 419’ 


‘non son 


ae ie 


onronwsos* 


wt UBRARYOs, 


“Wags 1¥)-40 


OF-CALIFOR, 


“USMANI 


OF CALIFORY, 


TSHAAI 


Sau 


sen 


USMIN 


AE-LIBR 


“Wags {1 


ahead ge Loo ye ee Were" peg 


S 
¢ 
; 
é 


es g 
“Yoxuvugna 


Fes aah BION EY 


1: 
I, 


408 RHE 
=, § 
ISUIAIND IRS: 

SHAE 
ed j 
<QE-LIBRARY: 
WYOSNV)-30° 
OF-CALIFORY, 


% 6 

V4 4ITV)-40 HAQAIN 40 STiyonv-sorss MSHIAIND-AWY 
QOFCALFORy, A OFCALIFOR, HEUNIVERS 7 SOSANEEy 
= 5 ae ies = = 
> : : < Ba the 

a A 2 2 s—p)s sae 
a & & & % = 4 ‘$ 
Yoxuwuana — “oxuvaanaw™ “myowwsors® saan ae 


aM Pe pLOSANGELES <AELIBRARY.Q¢ AE LIBRARY.Q¢ 


a> 


<AU-LIBRARY-Oe 
1 WHOMTW-40 

OF CALFORY, 
Sonavaan Wy 
SSSA 
pel } 
SHlOSANCLEY 
et > 


SOFC 


STONY: sox CUSHIAIND: ts Wasi): 10 “aos HV)-40" 
AE-UNIVERS, F-CALIFO 
ss hy, ges MCtLEr Ri CALFORY, RY ly 
& ae = a = 2 
zs = 3 = = = = 4 
= Se ee uy Poy Gey = 
Zeoysor® = Wanna? —“oruvuene™ — Yonuvaana® 
gAE-LIBRARY.O, at UBRARYOs, ite UNIVER, 10S: etl, 


“ 


WW 


spst08 nity 
a w> 
<pl05 AM 
ae 
Haan): 40 
“OF CALIFORY, 
Yo quvuanias 


wavs — Yana: Pts 


MeQaind 10 or 
SHEUNIVERS/7, gp LOSANGELER 
o 


OF CALIFORy, 


Wuos {1¥)-40 
OF-CALIFORy, 





x & ss 

e 468 zs sae 
= ae Ss = a 5 = 
S a 5 a § = 5 = 
z & 2 Se = & S 
YO ANVHSITASS “onuveanays enywysor® — asuinwnaws™ 
<WEUNIVERS)> AOS-ANCELES: E-LIBRARY E-LIBRARY. 
Dee fee epee erie 
ze > = Ss 8 = 8 = 
= 2 2 2 2 fe Nf 222 
a5): sGEE = s & S 
Ss ~~ —, 
“eos = @oaanngws”  Maoanvaso — aoanvo40> 


oe ewe faleere F. 


co OP eentee retare g.. 


~ tne LUTE Ps ed ee ie ee Say enn od eC ey ae 


scar mh ee ee. 


“40 BIDHENHVA. 


a 
: = 
eee o- 





THE CHURCH AND THE CHURCHES. 


is 
fi 


APs a 
feet ce dares 
We Eee 





tat LSE 
Pye bales Sar 





THE CHURCH AND THE CHURCHES; 


oR, 


THE PAPACY AND THE TEMPORAL POWER. 


An Historigal and Political Davie. 


DR. DOLLINGER. 


TRANSLATED, WITH THE AUTHOR'S PERMISSION, 


BY 


WILLIAM BERNARD MAC CABE. 


IN ONE VOLUME. 


LONDON: 


HURST AND BLACKETT, PUBLISHERS, 
SUCCESSORS TO HENRY COLBURN, 
13, GREAT MARLBOROUGH STREET. 
1862. 


The right of Translation is reserved. 


LONDON : 
PRINTED BY R. BORN, GLOUCESTER STREET, 
REGENT’S PARK. 


gap) 


Stack 
Annex 


5 
070 
Re4 


BIOGRAPHICAL PREFACE. 


BY THE TRANSLATOR. 


As it is possible this book may fall into the hands of 
many but little acquainted with the claim which the Author 
has upon the attention of the learned in every country, it 
has been deemed advisable to collect some materials respecting 
his antecedent biography. The life of an author is to be found 
in his works; and it will be seen by the subjoined narrative 
that the years of Dr. Déllinger have been crowded with 
events; and that each of these reflects honour upon him as 
a theologian, a scholar, and an historian, as a man of deep 
research and of original thought. 

Dr. Déllinger was born at Bamberg, on the 28th February, 
1799, and educated at Wiirzburg. After several years passed, 
first at a curacy in Franconia, and as Professor at the Eccle- 
siastical Seminary of Aschaffenberg, he was, in 1826, appointed 
one of the Faculty of Theology in the new University of Munich. 
- The results of the French Revolution were felt in the youth 
and early manhood of Dr. Déllinger. Rationalism was every- 
where predominant. There was no master-mind amongst the 
Roman Catholics of Germany; and the young and ardent 
student was thrown upon his own resources, and compelled 


vi PREFACE. 


to rely on his own independent research for the acquisition 
of knowledge and the formation of his judgment. The 
results of such a course are apparent in the writings of Dr. 
Dillinger; for all exhibit profound and extensive learning, 
a judgment free from personal and partial influences, the 
habit of penetrating directly to original sources, and a 
critical method to which the works of the patristic, the 
scholastic, and modern writers are indifferently subjected. 
Dr. Dillinger’s earliest work was on “The Doctrine of 
the Eucharist in the three first Centuries,” 1826. Two 
years later appeared a “ History of the Reformation,” form- 
ing the third volume of “ The Ecclesiastical History” of 
Hortig. He then undertook to re-write the whole work, 
and published in 1833 the first, and in 1835 the second volume 
of that “ Church History” by which his name first became 
widely known for his learned and able defence of the 
Catholic idea, and for the confidence with which many 
views, so often repeated as to be believed unquestionable 
and essential, were abandoned as untenable. Four more 
volumes which had been announced were never written; 
but an elaborate treatise on “ The History, Character, and 
Influence of Islamism,” appeared in 1838; and a Com- 
pendium of the History of the Church down to the 
Reformation, was published in the years 1836-1843. The 
history of the six first centuries is given with extreme 
brevity; but the history of the Middle Ages, though much 
compressed, displays even more copious erudition than the 
account of the earlier period in the larger work. In the 
English translation, these two histories have been unskil- 
fully combined. Between the years 1846 and 1848, Dr. 
Dollinger published three large volumes on the history of 
German Lutheranism, “ The Reformation, its Internal De- 
velopment and its Effects.” The original design was too 
extensive to be completed; the work remains a fragment, 
and the innumerable extracts from the writings of the period, 
many of them rare, and some unpublished, whilst they confer 
on these volumes a value they will never lose, yet render 
them difficult to be read with pleasure. But the immense 


PREFACE. Vil 


research with which the ideas of the Reformers and their 
contemporaries, on the doctrine and the condition of their 
Church, are exposed, make this by far the most instructive 
account of the German Reformation. 

During this period Dr. Dollinger delivered courses of lec- 
tures on several other branches of Divinity besides that 
which specially belonged to his chair; “ on the Philosophy 
of Religion,” “on Canon Law,” “on Symbolism,” and on 
“the Literature of the Patristic Age.” Having ceded, for 
some years, his professorship of ecclesiastical history to 
Mohler, whose lesser writings he afterwards collected, he took 
that of dogmatic theology, which in his hands was trans- 
formed into a history of revelation and of the development 
of doctrine. None of these lectures have been printed, but 
the author has published from time to time a large number 
of occasional writings. Among the earliest were “An Es- 
say on the Religion of Shakespeare,” and a lecture “on the 
Introduction of Christianity among the Germans.” A “Com- 
mentary on the Paradise of Dante,” accompanied by the de- 
signs of Cornelius in 1830; “ Mixed Marriages—a Voice for 
Peace,” came out in 1838, during the conflict between the 
Prussian Government and the Archbishop of Cologne. In 
the following years articles on “The Tractarian Movement,” 
*¢ John Huss and the Council of Constance,” “The Albi- 
genses,” appeared in the “Historisch-politische Blatter,” over’ 
which, though very rarely a contributor, he presided for 
many years. A dissertation on “ The Position of the Church 
towards those who die out of Her Communion,” was written 
in 1842, on the occasion of the death of the Dowager Queen 
of Bavaria; a lecture on “Error, Doubt, and Truth,” was 
originally delivered by Dr. Ddéllinger before the students, as 
Rector of the University ; a speech on “The Freedom of 
the Church,” one of his most excellent publications, at Ra- 
tisbon, in 1849. “ Martin Luther, a Sketch,” was reprinted 
in the year 1852, from a theological Encyclopedia to which 
he also contributed articles on “ Bossuet,’ and on “ Duns 
Scotus.” A pamphlet on “Coronation by the Pope,” was 
produced in 1853, when it was feared that Pius LX. would 


Vill PREFACE. 


be induced to crown the Emperor of the French; and de- 
scribed the different instances in which it had been done, 
and the error committed on the last occasion. 

From 1845 to 1847 Dr. Déllinger represented the Univer- 
sity of Munich in the Bavarian Chamber, where he was re- 
garded as one of the leaders of the Ultramontanes. Several 
of his speeches have been published. In the latter year he 
was deprived of his professorship, and consequently of his 
seat in the Chamber, where the ministers who had been 
raised to power by Lola Montez dreaded the influence of his 
eloquence and character. Having been elected a deputy to 
the National Parliament in 1848, he spoke and wrote with 
great effect in favour of religious liberty, and the definition 
of “the relations between Church and State,” which was 
carried at Frankfort, and was afterwards nominally adopted 
both at Vienna and Berlin, is said to have been his work. 
The same spirit and the same principles which made him in 
religion the keenest of controversial writers, and the most 
earnest advocate of reforms, guided him in political life, and 
made him the exponent of the highest Catholic views, and 
the champion of ecclesiastical freedom. He regarded the 
oppression of the Church as the safeguard of absolutism in 
the State, and the faults and errors of Catholics as a fruitful 
source of the divisions and disputes among Christians. In 
his desire to reconcile religion with society, and Protestantism 
with Rome, Dr. Déllinger admitted no compromise, but, ac- 
knowledging the just claims and real progress of the modern 
world, and the evils that afflict the Church, he sought to dis- 
tinguish that which is essential and true from those things 
with which, from ignorance or superstition, interest or unbe- 
lief, it had been surrounded. : 

In the spring of 1849, he returned to Munich and was 
restored to his professorship, and also to his seat in the 
Chamber, which he, however, resigned two years later, in 
order to devote himself to the completion of his literary plans. 
Three principal works have since appeared, each complete in 
itself, and superior, both in style and matter, to those by which 
they had been preceded. The publication of the “ Philoso- 


PREFACE. 1x 


phumena,” by Miller, in 1851, gave rise to a prolonged dis- 
cussion, in which many Catholics sought to‘weaken the testi- 
mony of the author, whilst Protestant writers endeavoured 
to use his authority for the purpose of throwing discredit on 
the Church of Rome. In answer to both parties—especially to 
Gieseler, Baur, Bunsen, Wordsworth, and Lenormant—Dr. 
Dollinger published, in 1853, “ Hippolytus and Callistus— 
The Roman Church in the Third Century,’—perhaps, of all 
his writings, the one in which his ingenuity of combination, 
his skill as a logician, and his lofty tone in handling the 
interests of his Church, are most conspicuous. The classical 
learning shown in this work was more abundantly displayed 
in the introduction to the history of (Christianity, which 
appeared in 1857, under the title of “ Paganism and 
Judaism.” In 1860 appeared a volume entitled “Christianity 
and the Church in the period of their Foundation,” which is 
the author's masterpiece. It is understood to be Dr. 
Dollinger’s intention to continue this work down to the 
present time. The newspapers have also announced a 
volume on the thirteenth century, and a rumour has long 
circulated that a work on the Medieval Heresies, founded 
on very extensive researches in Rome, Florence, Paris, and 
Bologna, was in preparation. These labours were inter- 
rupted by the course of events which called forth the 
present volume. Of the value to be attached to this work, 
it would not be becoming in the Translator to express an 
opinion; but a few words he cannot refrain from adding 
with reference to the spirit in which the translation has been 
executed. 

In our Courts of Justice, when a witness speaking a 
foreign language is called upon to give his evidence, there is at 
the same time sworn an interpreter, to whom an oath to the 
following effect is administered : 

“You shall well and truly interpret to the Court and 
Jury, and to the best of your skill and knowledge, the evi- 
dence of the Witness in this Cause.” 

When undertaking to convey to English readers the 
opinions and statements of the most distinguished of living 


x PREFACE. 


German scholars and writers, upon topics of paramount 
interest, the translator felt himself under an obligation some- 
what similar to that which binds the sworn interpreter. He 
has, “to the best of his skill and knowledge,” given as close 
an English representation of Dr. Déllinger’s German words 
as the genius of the two languages would permit. 

In accordance with such a desire, he has adopted, verbatim, 
or, with only a few alterations, passages of Dr. Ddllinger’s 
work, which he found translated in “ The Rambler,” vol. vi., 
part 16. 

The Author has, in the second part of this book—“The 
Papacy and the Papal States”—:made frequent reference to 
the favoured bureaycratic class in Rome, the “ Prelatura.” 
A literal translation of the word “ Prilaten” into English, 
as “ Prelates,” might lead to a gross misapprehension. In 
England, Ireland, and Scotland, the universal signification 
given to the word “prelate,” corresponds precisely with 
Johnson’s definition of it—“‘an Ecclesiastic of the highest 
order and dignity.” Our “ Prelates” are either archbishops 
or bishops; but it will be seen by the annexed account given 
of the Roman “ Prelates,” that they are far different, in every 
respect, from members of the Episcopal order. 

“The ‘ Prelatura,” (observes Mr. Lyons, in his letter to 
the Marquis of Normanby, No. xxxi.,) “is essentially an 
Ecclesiastical Body: its members, whether they actually 
take orders or not, are looked upon as belonging to the 
clergy. They wear the ecclesiastical habit; they are ex- 
pected to act, think, and speak as Churchmen. They form 
a body apart from the rest of the community. They have 
ecclesiastical privileges. It is true that they have not all of 
them irrevocably taken a vow of celibacy; nay, I believe there 
are even some rare instances of prelates actually married. 
But if a prelate marry, his career is almost inevitably closed 
—his hopes of high office and of the cardindlates are at an 
end.”* 

To prevent misunderstanding, whenever this class of 


* Despatches from Mr, Lyons, respecting the condition and adminis- 
tration of the Papal States. London, 1860, p. 50. 


PREFACE. xl 


officials is referred to in the following pages, they will be 
found designated with the name by which they are known 
in Rome, that is, as “ Prelati.” 


W. B. M. 
Mit Hit Lopes, Hastings. 
April, 1862. 





CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION. ‘ ; ° 


PART I. 
THE CHURCH AND THE NATIONS . 
THE PAPACY . 
THE CHURCH AND CIVIL FREEDOM . . 


THE CHURCHES WITHOUT THE PAPACY—A PANO- 
' RAMIC SURVEY: 


THe CHURCH OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTAN- 


TINOPLE . 
Tue Russian CHURCH . 
Ture CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE DISSENTERS 
Tue ENGiLisH DissENTING SECTS . 
Tur Cuurcn 1x ScoTLAND . ‘ 
Tue CuurcHes In HOLLAND 
PROTESTANT CHURCHES IN FRANCE 
Tue PROTESTANT CHURCHES IN SWITZERLAND 


PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES 


oF AMERICA . 


122 


AOR? 
130 
143 
173 
186 
197 
204. 


212 


219 


Xiv CONTENTS. 


THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN SCANDINAVIAN 
COUNTRIES. 


THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES IN GERMANY 


PART 11. 


THE POPE AND THE STATES OF THE CHURCH TO 
THE TIME OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 


INTERNAL CONDITION OF THE PAPAL STATES PREVIOUS 


To 1789 . 
Tue Papa STATES FROM 1814 To 1846 


Prius [X.—1846-1861 


APPENDIX. 


Tue AvutTHor’s Two LEcTURES ON THE PAPACY AND THE 


Papat STATES 


250 


267 


336 


360 


374 


408 


456 


THE CHURCH AND THE CHURCHES. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Tuts work has arisen out of two lectures which were delivered 
in the month of April of the present year. I feel myself 
bound to explain how I came to speak, before a very mixed 
auditory, upon the most difficult and complicated question of 
our time; and that, too, in a manner decidedly different from 
what is usually adopted. I had at first determined, when the 
request to deliver some lectures reached me, simply to speak 
of the present state of religion in general, with a com- 
prehensive view extending over all mankind. It happened, 
however, that by those very circles (from which the impulse 
to the delivery of the lectures had come) the question was 
frequently put to me—“ How was the position of the Papal 
See—the partly consummated, partly threatened loss of its 
temporal sovereignty—to be explained?” “ What”—I was 
repeatedly asked—“ what was one to say in reply to those 
non-churchmen who pointed, with triumphant scorn, to the 
numerous episcopal manifestoes in which the States of the 
Church are declared essential and necessary to her existence, 
even though the events of the last thirty years appear with 
unerring distinctness to announce their downfall ?” 

I had, too, in newspapers, periodicals, and books, fre- 

B 


2 INTRODUCTION. 


quently found the hope expressed, that with the downfall of 
the temporal sovereignty of the Pope, the Church itself 
would not escape the doom of dissolution. At the same time, 
I was struck by finding, in the Memoirs of Chateaubriand, 
this expression of Cardinal Bernetti, Secretary of State to 
Leo XII.: “That if he lived a long time, there was the 
prospect before him of yet beholding the fall of the temporal 
power of the Papacy.) I had also read in the commu- 
nication of a Paris correspondent, whose name has been 
mentioned to me as that of a well-informed and trustworthy 
person, “that the Archbishop of Rheims, on his return from 
Rome, had recounted what Pope Pius had said to him: ‘TI 
yield to no illusions; the temporal power must fall. Goyon 
will abandon me; I shall then disband my remaining troops. 
I shall, as the King enters, excommunicate him, and calmly 
await my death.’ ”? 

I already believed, in April, I could perceive that which is 
still more plainly exhibited in October, that the enemies of 
the temporal Papal-Sovereignty are resolute, united, predo- 
minant, and that nowhere is there to be found a protecting 
power which possesses at the same time the will and the 
ability of averting the catastrophe. I considered it, there- 
fore, probable that an interruption of the temporal dominion 
would ensue—an interruption which, like to others that had 
preceded it, would again cease, and be followed by a restora- 
tion. I resolved, therefore, to avail myself of the opportunity 
which the lectures afforded me to prepare the public for those 
coming events the shadows of which had been cast into the 
present time, and thus to prevent the scandals, the doubts, 
and the offence which must inevitably arise if the States of 
the Church should pass into other hands, although episcopal 
pastorals had hitherto energetically asserted that they be- 
longed to the integrity of the Church. I meant, therefore, 
to say :—That the Church can exist by and for herself, and 
that she did exist for seven centuries without the territorial 


1“ Mémoires d’Outretombe,” viii. 136. Ed. de Berlin. 
? Such is the statement in the London Catholic weekly journal, the 
Weekly Register, March 2, 1861, p. 4. 





INTRODUCTION. ~ 3 


possessions of the Popes; but that at a later period this pro- 
perty, through the condition of the world, became necessary, 
and, in spite of great changes and vicissitudes, has discharged 
in most cases its function of serving as a foundation for the 
independence and freedom of the Popes. As long as the 
present state and arrangement of Europe endures, we can 
discover no other means to secure to the Papal See its free- 
dom, and, through it, general confidence. But God’s know- 
ledge and power reach further than ours, and we must not 
presume to set bounds to the Divine Wisdom and Omnipo- 
tence, and cry out to it—“ This way, and not otherwise.” 
Should, however, the event which now threatens to occur 
actually take place, and the Pope be despoiled of his landed 
possessions, one of three eventualities will assuredly come to 
pass :—LEitner the loss of the Papal States is only temporary, 
and the territory will revert, after some intervening casualties, 
in its entirety or in part, to its rightful sovereign; or Provi- 
dence will bring about, by ways unknown to us, and com- 
binations which we cannot divine, a state of things in which 
the object—namely, the independence and free action of the 
Papal See, without those means which have hitherto sufficed 
for it; or, lastly, we are approaching great catastrophes in 
Europe—a collapse of the whole edifice of existing social 
order—events of which the downfall of the Papal States is 
only the precursor, or, as it may be said, “the Job’s- 
messenger.” 

I have developed, in this book, the grounds upon which I 
think of these three possibilities, the first the most probable. 
As to the second possibility, there is nothing to be said but 
this—that it is an unknown, and consequently indescribable 
=x—it is only good for this much: we must retain it against 
certain over-confident assertions, which profess to know the 
secret things to come, and trespassing on the Divine Domain, 
wish to subject the Future absolutely to the laws of the 
immediate Past. That the third possibility must also be ad- 
mitted, few of those who studiously observe the signs of the 
times will dispute. One of the shrewdest historians and 
statesmen, Niebuhr, had, so long ago as the 5th October, 

B2 


4 * INTRODUCTION. 


1830, written these words: “If God does not marvellously 
help, there is impending over us a destruction such as 
occurred to the Roman world in the middle of the third 
century—the annihilation of prosperity, freedom, civilization, 
and literature.” And we have proceeded much further on 
the inclined plane since then. The Powers of Europe have 
overturned, or permitted to be overturned, the two main 
pillars of their edifice—the principles of Legitimacy and 
public international Law. Those monarchs who have made 
themselves, like to slaves, the tools of revolution, are now 
active performers in the world’s historical drama—the others 
conduct themselves as quiet spectators, and are, in their 
hopes, smiling heirs, like Prussia and Russia; or they are 
bestowing applause and giving help, like England; or they 
are as passive invalids, like Austria, or the hectic-fever- 
stricken Turkey. But the Revolution is a permanent 
chronic disease, breaking out now in one place, now in 
another, and then attacking several members at the same 
time. The Pentarchy is dissolved; the Holy Alliance, 
even though a defective and misused form of European 
political order, is buried. The right of the strongest alone 
now prevails in Europe. Is it a process of renovation, or a 
process of dissolution, in which European society is plunged ? 
I still believe it to be the former; but I must, as I have 
said, admit the possibility of the other alternative. If it 
occurs—then, when the powers of destruction have done 
their work, it will be the. business of the Church at once to 
co-operate actively in the reconstruction of social order out 
of the ruins, both as a connecting civilizing power and as the 
preserver and dispenser of moral and religious tradition. 
And for this, too, the Papacy has, with or without territory, 
its own function and its own mission. 

Such, then, were the ideas from which I started; and it 
may be supposed that my language concerning the immediate 
fate of the temporal power of the Pope necessarily sounded 
ambiguous—that I could not, with the confidence that is 
given to others, perhaps more keen-sighted men—come 
before my auditors, and say: “Rely upon this—the States 


INTRODUCTION. 5 


of the Church—the land from Radicofani to Caperano, from 
Ravenna to Civita Vecchia, shall and must and will remain 
with the Popes—heaven and earth shall pass away, before 
the States of the Church pass away!” I could not do this, 
because I had not then any such conviction, nor do I now, in 
the slightest degree, entertain it; but of this I am alone 
confident, that the Papal See will, not be permanently 
deprived of the conditions necessary for the fulfilment of its 
mission. Hence, the substance of my words was this, “ Let 
no one lose faith in the Church, if the temporal principality 
of the Papacy should disappear, whether it be for a season, 
or for ever. It is not essence, but accident; not end, but 
means; it began late; it was formerly something quite 
different from what it is now. It now justly appears to us to 
be indispensable ; and so long as the existing order lasts in 
Europe, it must, at all cost, be maintained; or, if it is 
violently interrupted, it must be restored. But it is possible 
to suppose a political condition of Europe in which it would 
be superfluous, and then it would be only a clogging burden.” 
At the same time, I wished to defend Pope Pius IX., and 
his government, against numerous accusations, and to show 
that the inward infirmities and deficiences which undeniably 
exist in the country, and through which the State has been 
reduced to such an astounding condition of weakness and 
helplessness, are not attributable to him; that, on the con- 
trary, he has, both before and since 1848, shewn the best 
will to reform; and that, actually by him, and. under him, 
many things are now much better than they had been. 

The reports in the newspapers, written out at home from 
memory, gave but an inaccurate representation of a discourse 
which did not attempt to cut the knot in the usual way, but 
which, with buts and ifs, and referring to certain elements— 
to critical and decisive events, for the most part left out of 
the calculation—alluded to an uncertain future and manifold 
contingencies. This was unavoidable. Every report, not 
absolutely verbal, must, despite of the best intentions of the 
reporter, give rise to a distorted apprehension. When, 
_ therefore, one of the most widely circulated journals reported 


6 INTRODUCTION. 


the first lecture, without any intentional falsification, but 
with omissions, which altered the sense and tendency of my 
words, 1 immediately proposed to the editor to print my 
manuscript ; but this was declined. In other reports of the 
daily organs I was often unable to recognize my own ideas; 
whilst expressions were put into my mouth to which I was 
altogether a stranger. 

And here I will admit that, when I gave the lectures, I did 
not think that they would be discussed by the press; but I 
expected that, like others of the same kind, they would at 
most be mentioned in a couple of words, in futuram oblivionem. 
Of the controversy which sprang up at once in separate 
works, and in newspaper articles—in Germany, France, 
England, Italy, and even in America—I shall not speak. 
Much of it I have not read—the writers often did not even ask 
themselves whether the report which accident put into 
their hands, and which they carelessly adopted, was at all 
accurate. But I must refer to an account in one of the 
most widely read of English periodicals, because I am there 
brought into a society to which I do not belong. In the 
July number of the Edinburgh Review, there is an article, 
written, as it is reported, by Mr. H. Cartwright, and 
entitled “Church Reformation in Italy.” The author first 
analyses Rosmini’s treatise, ‘ Le cinque piaghe della chiesa ;” 
he then speaks of what is congenial to it, of the existing 
change of circumstances in Italy favourable to the views of 
Rosmini, of the Dominican of St. Mark in Florence, of the 
Capuchins, of a writing by the Oratorian Capecelatro of 
Naples, which takes an unfavourable view of the Temporal 
Sovereignty of the Pope—and then, misapprehending the 
tendency of my expressions, and under the erroneous 
notion that I had already published an apology of my ortho- 
doxy, he appeals to me—and then comes a detailed descrip- 
tion of the sentiments and sufferings of Passaglia and Tosti. 
A sharp attack upon me in the Dublin Review I know only 
from extracts in the English papers, but I can see, from 
the vehemence with which the writer pronounces himself 
against “liberal” institutions, that, even after the appear- 


INTRODUCTION, 7 


ance of this book, I cannot reckon on coming to an under- | 
standing with him. 

Upon this matter every one now can judge for himself. 
To fulfil a promise that I had given, I have had both 
lectures printed as an appendix, just as they were origi- 
nally composed, merely omitting the introduction, it not 
touching upon the general Church and State question, and 
being nothing more than casual reflections. As a matter of 
course, in revision, many things that were introduced extem- 
pore are left out, although not in the slightest degree at 
variance with the sense of what is here published. 

The excitement which was caused by my lectures, or 
rather by the reports of them in the daily press, had this 
advantage, that it brought to light, in a way which to many 
was unexpected, in what wide circles, how deeply and how 
firmly rooted is the attachment of the people to the See of 
St. Peter. For the sake of this, I was glad to accept all the 
attacks and animosity which fellon me in consequence. But 
wherefore—it will be asked, and I have been asked innumer- 
able times—wherefore not cut short misunderstandings by 
the immediate publication of the lectures, which must, as a 
whole, have been written previous to delivery? Why wait 
for five months? For this I had two reasons. First, it was 
not merely a question of misunderstanding. Much of what 
I had actually said had made an dinpleasde' impression in 
many quarters, especially among our optimists. I should, 
therefore, with my bare statements, have become involved in 
an agitating newspaper and pamphlet squabble, and that 
was not an attractive prospect. My second reason was—I 
expected that the further development of circumstances in 
Italy, the irresistible logic of facts, would dispose many minds 
to receive certain truths. I hoped that people would learn 
by degrees, in the school of events, that it is not enough 
always to be reckoning with the figures “ Revolution,” 
“Secret Societies,” “ Mazziniism,” “‘ Atheism,” or to esti- 
mate things only by the standard supplied in “The Jew of 
Verona,” but that other factors must be admitted into the 
calculation ; for instance—the condition of the Italian clergy, 


8 . INTRODUCTION. 


and their position towards the laity. I wished, therefore, to 
let a few months pass away, previous to my appearing 
before the public. Whether I calculated rightly, the recep- 
tion of this book will show. 

I thoroughly understand those who think it censurable 
that I should have spoken in detail of circumstances and 
facts that are willingly ignored, or that are skipped over with 
a light and fleeting foot, and that, too, especially at the 
present. crisis. I myself was restrained for two years by 
these considerations, in spite of the feeling that urged me 
to speak on the question of the Papal States; and it required 
the circumstances I have described, I may almost say, to 
compel me to speak publicly on the subject. I beg, then, of 
those persons to reflect on the following points. First, when 
an author openly exposes a state of things already abun- 
dantly discussed in the press; if he draws away the necessarily 
very transparent covering from the gaping wounds which 
are not in‘the Church herself, but on an Institution nearly 
connected with her, and whose infirmities she is made to feel 
—it may fairly be supposed that he does it, in accordance 
with the example of earlier friends, and great men of the 
Church, only to show the possibility and necessity of the 
cure, in order, so far as in him lies, to weaken the reproach 
that the defenders of the Church see only “the mote” in 
the eyes of others, not “the beam” in their own; and, with 
narrow-hearted prejudice, endeavour tosoften, ortodissimulate, 
or to deny every fact which is, or which appears to be, un- 
favourable to their cause. He does it in order that it may 
be understood that where the impotency of man to effect a 
cure becomes manifest, God interposes, in order to sift on 
His threshing-floor the chaff from the wheat, and to consume 
it with the fire-glow of catastrophes which are only His 
judgments and His remedies. Secondly, I could not, as 
an historian, present results without going back to their 
causes; and it was, therefore, my duty, as it is that of every 
religious inquirer and observer, to try and contribute some- 
thing to the Theodicea. He that undertakes to write on 
such lofty interests, which nearly affect the weal and woe 


INTRODUCTION. . 9 


of the Church, cannot avoid examining and displaying the 
wisdom and justice of God in the conduct of terrestrial 
events. The fate which has overtaken the States of the 
Church must, before all things, be considered in the light of 
a Divine Ordinance for the advantage of the Church. So 
considered, it presents itself as a trial which will endure 
until the object is attained, and the welfare of the Church, so 
far, secured. 

It seemed evident to me that, as a new order of things in 
Europe lies in the design of Providence, so the disease 
through which, for the last half century, the States of the 
Church unquestionably have passed, might be the transition 
to a new form. To describe this malady, without overlooking 
or concealing any of the symptoms, was, therefore, an 
undertaking I could not avoid. The disease has its source 
in the inward contradiction and discord of institutions and 
of circumstances; for the modern French institutions stand 
there in close and constant contact with a medieval hierarchy; 
and neither of these two elements is strong enough to expel 
the other; and either of them would, if it were the sole 
predominant power, be in itself a form of disease. Yet, in 
the history of the last few years, I recognise symptoms of 
convalescence, however feeble, obscure, and equivocal its 
traces may appear. What we behold is not death or hopeless 
decay; it is a purifying process—painful, consuming, and 
penetrating bone and marrow—such as God is wont to inflict 
upon. His chosen persons and institutions. There is no lack 
of dross, and time is required before the gold can come pure 
out of the furnace. In the course of this process, it may 
happen that the territorial dominion will be interrupted— 
that the State may be broken up, or pass into other hands ; 
but it will revive, though, perhaps, in another form, and with . 
a different kind of government. In a word, sanabilibus 
laboramus malis; that is what I wished to show, and that, 1 
believe, | have shown. 

Now, and for the last forty years, the condition af’ the 
States of the Churth is the heel of Achilles to the Catholic 
Church; the standing reproach with opponents in every part 


10 INTRODUCTION. 


of the world—in America as in Europe; and a stumbling- 
block for numbers. Not as though the objections which are 
founded on the fact of this transitory disturbance and discord 
in the social sphere possessed any weight in a theological 
point of view. But still it is not to be denied that they are 
of incalculable influence on the disposition of the whole world 
external to the Church. 

Whenever a state of disease has appeared in the Church, 
there has been but one method of cure—that of an awakened, 
renovated, healthy consciousness; and of an enlightened 
public opinion in the Church. The very best will on the part 
of ecclesiastical rulers and heads has not been able to effect 
a cure, unless sustained by the general sense and conviction 
of the clergy and of the laity. The healing of the great 
malady of the sixteenth century, the true internal reformation 
of the Church, only became possible when people ceased to 
disguise or to deny the evil, and to pass it by in silence and 
with concealment ; and when so powerful and irresistible a 
public opinion had formed itself in the Church, that its 
commanding influence could no longer be evaded. At the 
present day, what we want, before all things, is the truth— 
the whole truth—not merely the acknowledgment that the 
Temporal Power of the Pope is required by the Church— 
for that is obvious to everybody, at least out of Italy; and 
everything has been said about it that can be said—but what 
there must be also is—an acknowledgment upon what condi- 
tions this power is possible for the future. The history of the 
Popes is full of examples, shewing how their best intentions 
remained unaccomplished, and how their most firm resolutions 
had been baffled, because persons in inferior circles were 
adverse to them, and because the interests of a firmly-com- 
pacted class, like an impenetrable hedge of thorns, resisted 
them. Adrian VI. was fully resolved to set about a 
reformation in earnest; and yet he achieved virtually nothing; 
and felt himself, though in possession of supreme power, 
utterly impotent when he came into contact with the passive 
resistance of all those who should have served as instruments 
in the work. Only when public opinion—even in Italy, and in 


INTRODUCTION. ll 


Rome itself—had been awakened, purified, and strengthened; 
and when the cry for reform resounded imperatively on every 
side, then only was it possible for the Popes to overcome 
resistance in the inferior spheres, and gradually, and step by 
step, to open the way for a more healthy state. May, 
therefore, a powerful, salubrious, unanimous public opinion 
in Catholic Europe come to the aid of Pius IX.! 

Here I must justify myself upon one point. Fault has 
been found with me that I have appealed to the “ Reports” 
of Mr. Lyons, which had been printed by order of the English 
Parliament. English “Reports,” it is said, are undisguisedly 
partial and unreliable. I have referred to them in proof 
that the Pope, with the best-intended reforms, was not in a 
position to content his dissatisfied subjects; and that every 
concession made by him was instantly perverted into an 
instrument for undermining his government. Now, the 
Count de Montalembert made use of the same “ Reports” 
in his celebrated second Letter to Count Cavour; and he 
did so with this remark: “ M. Lyons le seul diplomate honnéte 
que [Angleterre ait envoyé en Italie.” 1 subscribe to this 
eulogy; but, remembering Lord Normanby and Mr. Sheil, 
of whom my friend did not think in writing, I would strike 
out the word “ seul.” 

Concerning another part of this book, I have still a few 
words to say. I have given a survey of all the churches 
and ecclesiastical communities now existing. The necessity 
of attempting this task presented itself to me, because I had 
to make clear both the universal importance of the Papacy 
as a world-power, and the things that it actually performs. 
This could not be done fully without exhibiting the internal 
condition of the churches which have rejected it, and with- 
drawn from its influence. It is true that the plan increased 
under my hands, and I endeavoured to give as clear a picture 
as possible of the development which has accomplished itself 
in the separated churches since the Reformation; and, through 
it, in consequence of the views and principles which then had 
been once for all adopted. I have, therefore, admitted into 
my description no feature which is not, according to my 


12 INTRODUCTION. 


conviction, an effect, a result, however remote, of those 
principles and doctrines. There is doubtless room for 
discussion in detail upon this point, and there will unavoidably 
be a decided opposition to this book, if it should be noticed 
beyond the limits of the Church to which I belong. I hope 
that there also the justice will be done me of believing that 
I was far from having any intention of offending; that I 
have only said what must be said, if we would go to the 
bottom of these questions; that I had to do with institutions 
which, because of the dogmas and principles from which they 
spring, must, like a tree that is nailed to a wall, remain 
in one position, however unnatural it may be. Iam quite 
ready to admit that, on the opposite side, men are often 
better than the system to which they are, or deem themselves, 
attached; and that, on the contrary, in the Church, individuals 
are, on the average, inferior in theory and in practice to the 
system under which they live. 

And here is the proper place for me briefly to explain 
myself with reference to the Erfurt Conference, and the 
hopes connected with it, and especially as regards the 
relative positions of the Confessions (different creeds or 
religions) in Germany. I believe I am the more bound to do 
this, because some expressions of mine addressed in a letter 
to a friend, and bearing upon this subject, have been printed, 
although my name was not published. The following points 
may, perhaps, contribute in throwing some light upon the 
state of affairs:— 

1. The re-union of the Catholic and Protestant Confessions 
in Germany would, if it were now, or a short time hence, 
effected, be, in a religious, political, and social sense, a most 
salutary circumstance, both for Germany and Europe. 

2. There is not the smallest probability that this union can 
be immediately carried into effect. 

3. It is not possible at present, first, because the greater, 
more active, and more influential portion of German Pro- 
testants do not desire it, for political or religious reasons, in 
any form, or under any practicable conditions. 

4. It is impossible, secondly, because negotiations con- 


INTRODUCTION. . 13 


cerning the mode and the conditions of Union can no longer 
be carried on. For this purpose plenipotentiaries on both 
sides are required; aud these only the Catholic Church is 
able to appoint, by virtue of her ecclesiastical organization— 
not so the Protestants. Upon that side there is now no 
common basis, no one single starting-point (not even the 
Augsburg Confession), and every decree, and every dog- 
matic canon is underlaid with principles evoking the veto of 
individuals, as well as of entire Schools and Parties. 

5. The Catholic Church could, without the slightest 
difficulty, enter into a negotiation with the separated 
Greek and Russian Churches in reference to a re-union; and 
this negotiation, if not opposed by foreign interests, and 
the stolid ignorance of the clergy and people of those 
churches, might hold out a hope of the most favourable 
results. There, both parties stand on the same ground, in 
so far as they have both taken the same views as to the 
Church, its authority, and its uninterrupted continuity. 
This view is wanting on the Protestant side, and with it 
fails a common basis, without which, negotiations and 
attempts at coming to a common understanding are not 
possible. Isolated points are not here to be taken into 
consideration. 

6. To take the Holy Scriptures as a common basis, upon 
which Catholics and Protestants should make the attempt to 
come to an understanding would be purely illusory ; for, 

Primarily, so long as there have been Christians they 
never by such means came to be unanimous. A striking 
example of this is the dispute upon the Eucharistal conse- 
eration between the Lutherans and Reformers (Calvinists), 
which—after countless colloquies, and thousands of books 
published for three hundred years—has never progressed a 
single step. 

Secondly, the great advances that have undoubtedly been 
made, within the last thirty years, in expositions of the 
Bible, have in no way produced, on the Protestant side, a 
larger amount of faith or unity in doctrine—so far from that, 
the very contrary is perceivable. 


14 INTRODUCTION. 


7. Nevertheless, Protestants and Catholics have, theo- 
logically, come nearer to each other; for that main doctrine— 
those “articles with which the Church was to stand or fall,” 
and for the sake of which the Reformers declared separation 
from the Catholic Church to be necessary, are now confuted 
and given up by Protestant theology, or are retained only 
nominally, whilst other notions are connected with the 
words. 

8. The Augsburg Confession is not only “the fundamental 
creed of the Reformation,” but it is also the only one which 
the great majority of Christ-believing Protestants now ac- 
knowledge. Were this acknowledgment based upon a 
perfectly serious, clear recognition and right understanding 
of what it contains, then would the union of the separated 
Churches be proportionably attainable. ‘ But,” as Heinrich 
Leo! has lately observed, “everyone has this Confession in 
his mouth, but there is scarcely one who knows what it is, 
and no one seeks to embrace it in its original meaning. It 
is declared to be the corner-stone of Protestantism, and 
great festivals have been celebrated in its honour; it is 
yearly lauded in every Protestant School, and scarcely one 
individual knows what is contained in it.” 

9. The Augsburg Confession, in its seventh article, 
‘ declares, “that there is, and.must continue to be at all times, 
one holy Catholic Church, which is an assembly of all the 
faithful, and by which the pure Gospel is preached, and the 
holy sacraments, in accordance with the Gospel, ad- 
ministered.” If language has not been invented for the 
purpose of concealing men’s thoughts, then this is affirming 
that, before the birth of the Protestant doctrine, there was 
already in existence a church, “ one,” “holy,” with “pure 
doctrine,” and ‘‘real sacraments.” Can there be along with 
“one holy Church” also a second and a third? Has the 
Church, which in the year 1517 was still “one,” “holy,” 
suddenly ceased to be, because since then new Associations, 
by separating from her, have arisen—which Associations 
instantly began to accuse her of false teaching, and of 

1 Neue Preuss. Ztg.,” 26th September. 


INTRODUCTION. 15 


having untrue sacraments—without there being, according to 
the Separatists’ own avowal, any essential changes in her? 
Could the authors of, and subscribers to, this article have so 
understood its signification, that the “one holy Church” 
was to consist of an undefined number of churchmen, sepa- 
rated in doctrine, sacraments, order, and mutually accusing 
one another of vital errors? Can the authority or sym- 
bolical value of the Augsburg Confession be seriously spoken 
of when this weighty and conclusive article is treated as non- 
existent, and when science ignores, or strongly disputes, or 
gives to it a directly contrary signification? An affirmative 
logical answer to these questions is an indispensable pre- 
liminary to every Confessional understanding, and this, too, 
it must, moreover, be in the interest of all laymen who are 
struggling after religious purity and certainty. 

10. So far as one can judge from literature, there appears 
to be the wish amongst theologians and clergymen on the 
Protestant side, that there should be a union amongst the 
Germans, now separated by religious distinctions. How it is 
to be effected some do not show—some put it in the form of 
a request that the Catholics should at once turn Protestants 
—whilst with others there is manifested the inclination, with 
a complete dimness as to the ways and the mode. Seldom, 
at least, has the author, in real life, met with a religious- 
minded Protestant layman who did not feel a desire for this 
union, and who also, for the most part, entertained the 
opinion that the time for it is come, as the duration of the 
separation has done much more evil than good. 

11. Protestant theology is, at the present day, less hostile, 
so to speak, than the theologians. For whilst theology has 
levelled the strongest bulwarks and doctrinal barriers which 
the Reformation had set up to confirm the separation—the 
theologians, instead of viewing favorably the consequent 
facilities for union, often labour, on the contrary, to conceal 
the fact, or to create new points of difference. Many of 
them may participate in the opinion of Stahl of Berlin, who, 
shortly before his death, said, “ Far from allowing that the 
breach of the sixteenth century can be healed, we ought, if 


16 INTRODUCTION. 


it had not already occurred, to make it now.”! This, 
however, will not continue, and a future generation—perhaps 
even that which is now growing up—will rather adopt the 
recent declaration of Heinrich Leo: “In the Roman 
Catholic Church a process of purification has taken place 
since Luther’s time; and if the Church had been in the 
days of Luther what the Roman Catholic Church in 
Germany is at present, it would never have occurred to him 
to assert his opposition so energetically as to bring about a 
separation.” Those who think thus will then be the right 
men and the chosen instruments for the acceptable work of 
the reconciliation of the Churches, and of the true unity of 
Germany. 

12. Upon the day when, on both sides, the conviction 
shall arise, vivid and strong, that Christ really desires the 
unity of His Church, that the division of Christendom, the 
multiplicity of Churches, is displeasing to God—that he 
who helps to prolong this situation must answer for it to the 
Lord—on that day four-fifths of the traditional polemics of 
Protestants against the Catholic Church will, with one 
blow, be cast aside, like chaff and rubbish; for four-fifths of 
it consists of misunderstandings, logomachies, and wilful 
falsifications ; or relate to personal, and therefore accidental, 
things, which are utterly insignificant, where only principles 
and dogmas are at stake. 

13. On that day, also, much will be changed on the 
Catholic side. Thenceforward the personal character of 
Luther and of the Reformers will be no more dragged 
forward in the pulpit. The clergy, mindful of the words, 
“ Interficite errores, diligite homines,” will ever conduct them- 
selves towards members of other Churches in conformity with 
the rules of charity, and will therefore assume, in all cases where 
there are no clear proofs to the contrary, the bona jides of 
opponents.* They will never forget that no man is convinced 


1 Address at the opening of the Berlin Pastoral Conference, in the 
“Evang. Kirchen-Ztg.,” June, 1861, p. 564. 

2‘*N, Preuss. Ztg.,” 27th September. 

5 After the example of one of the best prelates of our time, Cardinal 


INTRODUCTION. 17 


and won over by bitter words and violent attacks, but that 
everyone is rather repelled by them. Warned by the words 
of the Epistle to the Romans (xiv., 13), they will be more 
careful than heretofore to give to their separated brethren 
no scandal, no grounds of accusation against the Church. 
In popular instruction and in religious life they will accord- 
ingly make the great truths of salvation the centre of all 
their teaching: they will not treat secondary things in life 
and doctrine as though they were of the first importance, but, 
on the contrary, they will keep alive in the people the con- 
sciousness that such things are but means to an end, and 
are only of inferior consequence and subsidiary value. 

14. Until that day shall dawn upon Germany, it is our 
duty as Catholics, in the words of Cardinal Diepenbrock, “ to 
bear the religious separation in a spirit of penance, for guilt 
incurred in common.” We must acknowledge that here also 
God has caused much good, as well as much evil, to proceed 
from the errors of men, from the contests and passions of the 
sixteenth century; we must, too, admit that the anxiety of 
the German nation to see the intolerable abuses and scandals 
in the Church removed was fully justified; and that it sprang 
from the better qualities of our people, and from their moral 
indignation at the desecration and corruption of holy things, 
which were degraded to selfish and hypocritical purposes. 
We do not refuse to admit that the great separation, and the 
storms and sufferings connected with it, were an awful 
judgment upon Catholic Christendom, which clergy and 
laity had but too well deserved—a judgment which has had 
an improving and salutary effect. The great intellectual 
conflict has purified the European atmosphere, has impelled 
the human mind on to new courses, and has promoted a rich, 
scientific, and literary life. Protestant theology, with its 


de Cheverus, who, when he was Bishop of Boston in America, declared, 
from his intercourse with Protestants, converted by him to the Catholic 
faith: ‘‘ Que plusieurs Protestans pouvaient étre dans la bonne foi ou 
ignorance invincible qui excuse l’erreur devant Dieu. I] en conclut qu'il 
falloit étre tres—indulgent pour ceux qui se trompent, et trés reservé & 
les condamner.”—Vie du Cardinal de Cheverus, 2d edit., p. 140. 


Cc 


18 INTRODUCTION. 


restless spirit of inquiry, has gone along by the side of the 
Catholic, exciting and awakening, warning and vivifying; 
whilst every exalted Catholic theologian will readily admit 
that he owes much to the writings of Protestant scholars. 

15. We have also to acknowledge that in the Church the 
rust of abuses, and of a mechanical superstition, is always 
forming afresh; that the servants of the Church sometimes, 
through indolence and incapacity, and the people through 
ignorance, brutify the spiritual in religion, and so degrade 
and deform and misemploy it to their own injury. The 
right reforming spirit must therefore never depart from the 
Church, but, on the contrary, must periodically break out 
with renovating strength, and penetrate the conscience and 
the will of the clergy. In this sense we do not refuse to 
admit the justice of a call to penance, when it proceeds from 
those who are not of us,—that is, of a warning carefully to 
examine our religious life and pastoral conduct, and to 
remedy what is found defective. 

16. And yet it never must be forgotten that the separa- 
tion did not ensue in consequence of abuses in the Church. 
For the duty and necessity of removing those abuses has 
always been recognised; and only the difficulty of the thing, 
the not always unjustifiable fear lest “the wheat” should be 
pulled up with “the tares,” prevented, for a time, the refor- 
mation which was accomplished in the Church, and through 
her. Separation on account of mere abuses in ecclesiastical 
life, when the doctrine is the same, is rejected as criminal by 
the Protestant Church, as well as by us. It was therefore 
for the sake of doctrine that the separation occurred; and 
the general discontent of the people, the weakening of eccle- 
siastical authority by the existence of abuses, only facilitated 
the adoption of the new doctrines. But now, upon the one 
side, some of these defects and evils in the life of the Church 
have disappeared, and more have greatly diminished since 
the reforming movement. And, on the other side, the prin- 
cipal doctrines for which men separated, and on the truth of 
which, and their necessity for salvation, the right and duty 
of secession had been based, are given up by Protestant 


INTRODUCTION. 19 


science, deprived of their Scriptural basis by exegesis, or, at 
least, made very uncertain by the opposition of the most 
eminent Protestant theologians. 

17. Meanwhile, we live in hope; comforting ourselves with 
the conviction that history, or that process of development 
in Europe which is being accomplished before our eyes (as 
well in society and politics as in religion), is the powerful 
ally of the friends of ecclesiastical union; and we hold out 
our hands to Christians on the other side, for a combined 
war of resistance against the destructive movements of the 
age. For this—to use the words of Von Radowitz—is the 
state of affairs: “ We plainly perceive that the minds of men 
are ranging themselves under two banners—upon one of 
which is inscribed the name of ‘Christ, the Son of God; 
and beneath the other are incorporated all to whom That 
Name is Foolishness and a Reproach.” 


Munich, 12th October, 1861. 


c2 


THE CHURCH AND THE NATIONS. 


In. all time, antecedent to Christ, there were none other 
than National and State religions. ‘The populations had each 
their own divinities, and their peculiar form of worship. 
Their religions essentially contributed to keep the peoples 
more widely apart and more distinctly separated from one 
another. One nation might derive its divinities and take 
its form of worship from another; but a religious bond, 
embracing both, and drawing them closer together, was not 
thereby formed. The Christian religion, whose very existence 
from the beginning rested upon the disruption of Jewish 
national-religious individuality, was the first that appeared 
amongst mankind with a claim to Catholicity. It declared 
itself to be a universal religion; one that did not belong to 
any people in particular, but, on the contrary, whose calling 
and innate qualification were to extend itself over the surface 
of the globe; to receive into its bosom every variety of 
population; to satisfy their real religious wants, and, regard- 
less of national or geographical boundaries, to establish a 
great kingdom of God on earth—to found a Church for 
humanity ! 

The Roman Empire, through whose means the political, 
lingual, and conventional boundaries and bulwarks of con- 
quered nations had been broken down and levelled, had thus 
prepared the way, and smoothened a path for the Christian 
Church. And then, after a battle of three hundred years— 


UNITY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 21 


a battle in which there were suffering and confession on the ° 
one side, of persecution and of slaughter on the other—this 
empire was conquered by the Church, which had, at the same 
time, through the three principal languages of the period— 
the Greek, Latin, and Syrian—produced a triple literature, 
extended itself far beyond the limits of the Roman boundaries, 
penetrated far into Persia, and travelled away to the North, 
and amongst the German nations. The central point of 
Church life was Rome—the world-city— “ the sink of nations” 
—where Egyptians, Syrians, Asiatics, Armenians, Greeks, 
Jews, Gauls, Spaniards, met and mixed together—were 
mutually attracted towards one another, or repelled. Next 
to Rome, Alexandria—the great emporium of commerce, the 
seat of Greek and Oriental science and literature—served to 
nurture and develope the cosmopolitan character of Chris- 
tianity. 

And so was the Church nationally colourless. No one 
could then, or at any subsequent period, ever affirm that any 
one nation more than another had impressed the stamp of 
individuality upon the Church. After the fall of the Western 
Roman Empire the Church became the instructress and the 
foster-mother of new States. In its bosom were developed 
the ruling nationalities of the West, and all were penetrated 
with the consciousness of forming one mighty Christian folk- 
family; a European commonwealth, under the spiritual 
supremacy of the Papal See, and the temporal headship of 
the newly created Roman-Germanic Imperial Power. If 
France was proud to be called “the first-born son of the 
Church,” it thereby recognized the fraternal relations in 
which it stood as regarded the other sons of the one mighty 
mother—that is, to the people and states of the South, the 
North, and the East. Wars between brothers could be no 
more than a transitory phenomenon; whilst a permanent 
state of hostilities between members of the same great family 
was in reality to be no longer conceivable. The Church 
Councils were also national Congresses. If a heathen people 
became Christian, and began to mould its customs, both 
socially and politically, in accordance with the Christian 


22 NATIONAL RE-ACTION. 


model, its chief or duke was raised to the kingly dignity by 
the Pope, was solemnly consecrated and crowned by the 
Church, and the people were enrolled as members of the 
Christian folk-family, as the equals of all in birth, and like 
to the rest in their rights. 

In this manner was a problem solved, and a thought 
realised, which would have been declared by both Greeks and 
Romans to be alike absurd and impossible; that is a multi- 
tude of nationalities, through a community in faith, and of reli- 
gious worship, as well as by the bonds of an all-embracing 
ecclesiastical organization, united into one great whole. That 
there should not be wanting a vigorous reaction on the part 
of particular nationalities was a thing to be expected. The 
long and sanguinary persecution which was carried on 
amongst the Persians, under the kings of the Sassanides 
dynasty, was a reaction of this description. The new strange 
religion was hated and feared as being “ un-Persian,” as an 
intrusive “ Roman-Empire religion,” as coming to them from 
the territory of their hereditary foe; and hence they wished 
to exterminate its confessors, as men who had, at the same 
time, abandoned the national religion of Persia, and with 
their religion—Persian patriotism ! 

An element of nationality speedily mixed itself up with 
the schism of the Donatists. The separation from the Church, 
and its central point at Rome, which was effected in North 
Africa, although it was an act repudiated by all the rest of 
the Christian world, was, in point of fact, an outburst of the 
North African spirit of nationality, which sought to establish 
for itself its own thoroughly pure national Church, in opposi- 
tion to all others, which were assumed to have become 
corrupt and decayed. In the same manner was Egyptian 
nationality urged to take a part, ever since the fifth century, 
in the great Christological battle of the Monophysite doc- 
trine, that brought it to its having its own national Coptic 
Church, which still remains separated from the Catholic 
world, and the fragments of which, in a truly lamentable 
condition, subsist to the present day. In Armenia like 
causes produced like effects. 


BY ZANTINISM. 23 


At a later period—that is, since the twelfth century—the 
separation and isolation of the Church of the Byzantine 
Empire has been gradually completed. Two Powers ruled 
there, to whom a union with the Universal Church, and 
with Rome, was incommodious, because with that union were 
conjoined dependence and restraint: these two Powers were 
the Emperor, and the Patriarch at Constantinople." The 
latter (the Patriarch) sought to extend his spiritual dominion 
—so as that it might be an absolute despotism —over every 
inhabitant of the empire. The Emperor, for his part, wished 
to have in his hands the Church, and the Patriarch espe- 
cially, as a useable political tool at his uncontrolled disposal. 
Under such circumstances was developed Lyzantinism, that 
is, the national political spirit of the Greek Empire, and 
whose two factors were the absolutism of Imperialism over 
the State and the Church; and ignorance, combined with the 
arrogant self-exultation of the people. The Byzantines re- 
garded their emperor as the successor of the old Roman 
Cesars. Each Greek emperor was a new Constantine, 
entitled to reign over the East and the West—to the utmost 
limits to which the old imperial power had extended! The 
establishment of the Western Empire, the separation of Italy, 
the independence of the Pope, who, moreover, neither would 
nor could be the subject of the Emperor at Constantinople 
—all these circumstances were, in the eyes of the Greeks, in- 
surrections, usurpations, attempts against the cecumenical 
power of the Emperor, who had been instituted by God as 
the head of all Christendom! And then, the people, who, 
as they said, had, with the language, also inherited classic 
Greek literature and civilization—they haughtily and self- 
complacently looked down upon all who were not Greeks, as 
mere barbarians ! 

In the complete control over the Church in their Empire, 


1 The general notion, that Photius and Cerulerius were the originators 
of the separation, is not quite correct. In the twelfth century, there is 
still to be found frequent community in the Divine Services between the 
Greek and Latin Churches; as, for instance, in the year 1147, when 
King Louis VII., of France, arrived at Constantinople. 


24 IMPERIAL CONTROL OVER THE CHURCH. 


the Greek Emperors, especially after the exaltation of the 
Comnenes dynasty, went much further than the Russian Czar 
at a later period ever did. They willingly permitted the 
Patriarch to have unlimited power over bishops aud clergy ; 
but then, according to their own pleasure, they appointed, 
and they deposed him. Every Emperor was a born theolo- 
gian,'; he was above the canons of the Church, and he was 
above the laws of the State.2. Through their anointment and 
by their imperial dignity they had, as Isaac Angelus (who 
came to the throne in 1185),? declares, obtained a supreme 
superintendence in all matters of ecclesiastical doctrine and 
discipline. In short, they were, with the exception of the 
administration of the sacraments, in possession of all Church, 
official, and governmental rights. And the new Byzantine 
State and Court-Church laws had reduced all this to a 
regular, systematic theory. 

Contrasted with the active life, the juvenile freshness, 
and expansive vigour of the West, the Byzantine exhibited 
naught but that senile torpidity and haughty obstinacy which 
are no longer capable of learning; and are as sterile as they 
are incompetent of improvement, or of expelling that which 
is internally corrupting. As dethroned rulers, or as a person 
who has been despoiled of his property, the Byzantine looked 
at Rome and the restless movements of the Latin—that is, 
the half or wholly barbaric world. The great massacre, by 
which, in the year 1182, such numbers of the Latins were 
destroyed in the capital, was an outbreak of that national 
hatred which had struck such deep and ineradicable roots, 
from the moment that those foreigners had, with their army, 
overthrown the Greek throne, and established a Latin 
Emperor in Constantinople. In such a disposition, and in 
such a state of affairs, all—even the most trivial differences 


1 So says the historian, Crinnamus, p. 521. It is permitted to no one 
to investigate into the nature of God, but doctors, bishops, and—the 
Emperor! 

2 BaLsamon, ap. ‘ Bevereg. Cod. Canon,” i. 338. 

* Kowds trav ixkAnoidy imornwovdpxns Kai dy kal dvopatdpevos, says 
Demetrius CHoMATERUS, ap. “ Leunclay. Jur. Gr. Rom.,” p. 317. 


BYZANTINE ANTI-LATINISM. 25 


—in dogmatic expressions, in rites, and in church life, were 
carefully sought out, nurtured, and widened. It had formally 
become a question of national honour to possess the capability 
of accusing the Latins of heresy ; and ritual forms were 
invented, for the purpose of tangibly expressing the pollution 
which any contact with the Latins must occasion. In their 
common conversation, they contrasted “ Christians” —that is, 
Byzantines—with the “Latins;” and in the capital, even 
women, workpeople, and schoolboys chattered about “the 
procession of the Holy Ghost ;” and upon this abstruse (and 
only to practised theologians in some measure comprehensible) 
question, finally turned the controversy between the two 
Churches. The later Emperors, rendered by their necessities 
more prudent than their predecessors, yet found themselves 
incapable of repairing this breach: they were unable to 
contend against the national sentiment, which, though 
impotent in all other matters, was, upon this one point of 
anti-Latinism, obdurate and invincible. The union of 
Florence was again torn asunder—the Church of St. Sophia 
was doomed to become a mosque !! 

The destructive schism which took place towards the end 
of the fourteenth century, in consequence of the election of 
a French anti-pope, and then convulsed the Church for more 
than forty years, had, too, its origin in purely national interests. 
For that which was really intended to be effected by it was 
to have the Papal See and court, as the exclusive possession 
of the French nation, located upon French soil, and under 
the predominating influence of the French government. And 


1 Some felt strongly what injury must accrue to the Church through 
the operation of an Imperial Popedom ; but those entertaining such a 
conviction appear to be but few. The strongest expression of opinion I 
have met with is that of the Archbishop Simeon of Thessalonica (ap. 
** Morin. de Ordin.,” p. 138. Ed. Amstd.), He affirms that the perver- 
sion of the Church order, through the assumptions and assaults of the 
temporal power, is the cause of the decay both of the Empire and the 
nation. ‘‘ And hence it is,” he observes, ‘‘ that we have become impotent 
and contemptible in the estimation of all nations; and hence, too, it is 
that our foes scorn us, consume our harvests before our eyes, and possess 
themselves of our sacred relics and consecrated places,” &c., &c., &c. 


26 GERMAN NATIONAL FEELING. 


scarcely had this wound been healed, when the Hussite 
movement took place—that, too, was an attempt at a national 
separation, and the formation of a particular peoples’ church. 
The Czechish antipathy against the Germans had from the 
commencement a large share in their essay at a new Kcclesi- 
astical Structure, which was to be limited to the race of 
Czechs. 

When, with the appearance of Luther, began that powerful 
movement which split asunder Western Christendom, until 
then whole and united; and when new churches, with 
doctrines and constitutions entirely different from the old, 
were formed, there was not at its commencement to be found 
the impulse of the supreme interests of a nationality pushing 
onward reformation, and inciting insurrection against the 
Pope and the Church. The German people had, for a series 
of centuries, with a deep and complete devotion, been absorbed 
by the spirit of the Catholic religion; they had made their 
churches the most nobly-endowed of any in the world; they 
had created a literature that was purely Catholic, and yet 
was the genuine production of the German mind. But in the 
beginning of the sixteenth century there was spread far and 
wide in Germany a strong repugnance against the Popedom, 
as it was then; and no unrightful indignation with reference 
to abuses in the Church, and the moral depravity of a much 
too numerous and far too wealthy clergy. The national 
feeling of the German people had been for a considerable 
time offended by the treatment which German persons, 
things, and interests had experienced in Rome; and by the 
part which had been played, since the fourteenth century, by 
German kings and emperors, as opposed to the See of Rome. 
It was when this state of feeling prevailed, that the mightiest 
democrat and most popular character that Germany has ever 
possessed—the Augustinian monk of Wittenberg—presented 
himself as a leader and eloquent orator. At the same time, 
he, with his newly-invented doctrine of “ Justification,” had 
discovered a lever of wonderful strength, by means of which 
he might destroy the still great attachment of the people to 
the Catholic religion. He tendered a compensation—eagerly 


LUTHERANISM. 27 


and joyfully to be sought for—in repayment for what they 
had lost. 

Luther well understood how to draw into the service of 
his cause the German national feeling, which then exhibited 
itself in a decided manner, by its dislike of the Italian nation. 
He shews this by his frequent expressions in reference to the 
““ Whalen,” as the Italians were then called. There is 
scarcely a single vice that he does not attribute to them; 
and he purposely descants upon their assumed “ haughtiness, 
and their contempt for the Germans, who, in their eyes, are 
not even human beings.”! 

When the separation had been completed, the new Church 
system established, and the violent movement brought to a 
stand-still and a conclusion, it was found that only the half 
of Germany had submitted itself to the Lutheran doctrine. 
The other half remained as it had been, or it had again 
become Catholic. The Protestant portion was split up anew, 
for Calvinism was introduced into some territories previously 
Lutheran. Upon the whole, however, the Germans—that is, 
such of them as had broken off their communion with the 
old Church—were attached to the Lutheran doctrine; for 
Calvinism was in their estimation un-German and outlandish, 
and did not satisfy their religious feelings; whilst Luther- 
anism, in the two first centuries of its existence, was felt and 
comprehended as the most accurate product of the German 
mind, in matters of religion. Outside of Germany, the 
kindred Scandinavians were the only states that introduced 
amongst them the Lutheran form of Protestantism; whilst, 
on the other hand, the Calvinistic form owed its existence 
and diffusion on the German soil, for the most part, to the 
constraint exercised by individual princes. 

A Lutheran national Church was not established in 
Germany. The whole ecclesiastical power—such power as 
in the Catholic Church had been exercised by primate and 
episcopacy—was systematically intrusted to the temporal 
princes, and (in the imperial cities) to the municipal authorities, 


1See ‘“ Luther’s Werke,” Walch, Ausg., xiv. 273; xix. 1155; xxii. 
2365 ; ii. 1429. 


28 DISMEMBERMENT OF THE CHURCH. 


so that there were just as many churches as there were states 
and territories. Every prince and every Germanic-Empire 
titled noble was now both Pope and Bishop in his land or 
little holding. He was, in fact, sémething more; for he 
could alter the religion of his subjects according to his own 
pleasure; and the Palatine Electoral princes did actually, 
in a single generation, and through the instrumentality of 
depositions and banishments, four times violently change the 
religion of their country. And, then, so weakened has 
been the Church impulse in Protestant Germany, under the 
influence of the Lutheran doctrine, that, in three hundred 
years, there never has been one serious attempt made for the 
establishment of one all-embracing Lutheran Church-like 
band, having one common Church action. 

They content themselves with the conviction that they are 
in the exclusive possession of the pure doctrine, in which is, 
beyond all other things, to be understood “ self-attributed 
righteousness,” and upon which is founded unconditional 
personal “salvation.” This is called “the Gospel!” Besides 
this, they console themselves for this lamentable condition, 
dismemberment, and territorial servitude of Church affairs, 
with thoughts of the assumed glory of the invisible Church, 
which possesses in richer abundance and more fanciful 
perfection all that is wanting to the visible. 

In the rest of Europe, the Lutheran doctrine was a decided 
failure. It was either rejected, or it had to give way to the 
Calvinistic reform doctrine. It devolved upon the Saxons in 
Transylvania, after the German inhabitants of the cities 
amongst Hungarians and Poles had paved the way for it. 
But even so, it was plainly nothing more than the creed of a 
small minority, which saw itself on all sides overridden and 
pressed down by the logical, and (on that which is the main 
point) still more consolatory Calvinism. It was the same in 
the Netherlands and France. It was, therefore, correctly 
(even though but lately) said :—“ That the Lutheran Church 
was so absolutely modified, and so thoroughly animated with 
the German character, that, in another country, and under 
different national conditions, it could never exist. The 


CALVIN AND THE CALVINISTIC CHURCH-FORM. 29 


Scotch, for instance, could never be Lutherans, so long as 
they are Scotchmen.”! According to Schaff’s remark, 
“‘ Lutheranism loses more or less of its original features, and 
imperceptibly assimilates itself to the Reform Confession, so 
soon as it, through emigration, is transplanted to French, 
English, or American soil. This,” he adds, “is to be seen 
very plainly in the United States, if we compare the 
Anglicised portion of the Lutheran denominations with the 
foreign German Synods of Missouri and Buffalo.”? 

Calvin was as decidedly the creator of the so-called 
“reform” doctrine, as Luther was the originator of that which 
has been called after him. Calvin had only Zwinglius as a 
predecessor, whilst Luther was dependent on no one, and 
indebted to no one for anything. Calvin was not able, 
however, in his own country, France, to obtain the success 
and the high position which accrued to the German Reformer 
at home. The great majority of his countrymen still con- 
tinue to see in him only the founder of erroneous doctrines, 
and of a false Church; but as regards other nations, which, 
either wholly or partially, have accepted his system, he remains 
still a foreigner; and their national feelings will not tolerate 
the Church in their own land to be called by his name, and 
so be made known as the work of a stranger. They would 
have, therefore, their Church only known as being reformed; 
whilst the German Protestants, with the conviction that 
Luther is flesh of their flesh, and bone of their bone, that 
he is the nation-born prophet of Germans—name with 
satisfaction themselves “ Lutherans,’ and their church 
“ Lutheran.” 

Upon the whole, the Calvinistic Church-form, which had 
not at its commencement the stamp of a particular nationality 
upon it, has had a wider expansion than the Lutheran. 
Scotland, as regards the great majority of its inhabitants, 
became Calvinistic; whilst in the Netherlands and in Swit- 
zerland the larger portion of the population that adopted 

1“ Allgemeine Kirchenzeitung,” 15th May, 1855. 


2 ‘Germany ; its Universities, Theology, and Religion.” Edinburgh, 
1857, p. 168. 


30 THE EPISCOPAL STATE-CHURCH IN ENGLAND. 


Protestantism accepted it in that form. In Germany 
Calvinism attained an entrance into the Palatinate, Anhalt, 
Hesse, Bremen, and finally (since the conversion of Sigismond 
in 1614) into the Brandenburg territory. In Hungary the 
Magyars, so far as they fell off from the old Church, did so, 
for the ‘most part, to become Calvinists. In France, up to 
the time of the incorporation of Alsace, “Calvinist ” and 
“ Protestant” were synonymous terms. The churches of 
this confession, however, remained separated according to 
the territories in which they were placed; and in Switzerland, 
according to the Cantons in which they were located. Only 
once was there found to take place one common action, and 
one general confederation of all—or the most of the com- 
munities conforming to the Calvinistic doctrine. It was at 
the Dordrecht Synod, in the year 1618, when it was desired 
to defend and confirm genuine Calvinism in its practical 
doctrines, and such as they were most wished for by the 
masses, against the alterations of the Arminians. This was 
also the culminating point of Calvinistic Church development. 
From that time began its internal dogmatic and Church 
decomposition. 

As a third chief form of Protestantism, and with a complete 
national colouring and exclusiveness, the Episcopal State- 
Church in England instituted itself. Wholly differing from 
Lutheranism, it was, at the beginning, in its dogma super- 
abounding with Calvinism. It is, in its constitution, a 
mixture of Catholicity and Protestantism; it is territorially 
Protestant, or imperially papistical, in its principles and 
institutions ; it is, in its Liturgy, more Catholic than 
Protestant, and in its creed—“ the 39 Articles ”—more 
Protestant than Catholic. It suffers from its internal con- 
tradictions; and resembles a building which, erected out of 
heterogeneous materials, can only be prevented from falling 
to pieces by the strong hand of the State. The struggle with 
the Calvinistic elements contending for the supreme power, 
and which had been carried on for a long time in its bosom, 
gradually led to the separation of the Puritans, and to the great 
civil and religious war of the seventeenth century. At last the 


NATIONAL CHURCHES, Si 


more logical Protestant parties—the Presbyterians, Congrega- 
tionalists, and Baptists—gave to themselves a constitution of 
their own, and placed themselves in opposition to the State 
Church as independent Churches. It then shut out all the 
Protestant communities on the Continent so completely, that 
an ordained Lutheran or Calvinist preacher in England passes 
simply as a layman; and, in order to enter into the service 
of the Anglican Church, has to submit himself once more to 
Episcopal ordination. 

When we look over the whole course of the Reformation- 
century, at the result of the great movement, and the state 
of the newly-formed religious communities, we find everywhere 
the victorious principle of national distinct Churches mani- 
festing itself. “ Principle” is not, perhaps, the right expres- 
sion to make use of; for this state of things was by no 
means systematically brought about—it should rather be 
said that it was self-formed—it was the inevitable consequence 
of the opposite principle—that is, of Catholicity, of a Church 
for the entire world having been, with deliberate design, 
renounced. To the Temporal Power, to Princes, and their 
officials, in Protestant lands, was assigned, in its fulness, 
ecclesiastical power, with a supremacy in spiritual matters. 
The Reformers had willed that it should be so,! and 
therewith must necessarily cease every religious tie between 
different nationalities. In Germany there were as many 
Protestant Churches as there were distinct territories; and 


1 This has been frequently denied, but let any one confront the denial 
with the Wittenberg Consistorial Ordinance of the year 1542, in Richter’s 
‘‘Sammlung der Kirchen-Ordnungen,” p. 371, which was either com- 
posed or approved of by Luther and Melancthon. With reference to it 
Professor Schenkel says; ‘In this manner, with a single stroke of the 
pen, was the important matter of Church discipline placed wholly in the 
hands of the heads of the State, and this, too, without any reservation of 
ecclesiastical rights ; so that affairs of conscience were, from this time, 
treated precisely like worldly matters, and were to be settled altogether 
according. to the form of temporal legal proceedings. The subjection of 
the Church to the State was therewith completed, and the gate thrown 
wide open for boundless tyranny by the State over men’s consciences.” 
—‘‘ Studien und Kriticken,” 1850, p, 459. 


32 THE MISSION OF NATIONALITIES. 


each lord of the land was invested with the highest ecclesi- 
astical power. If a general “ Lutheran” Church, or an 
“ Evangelical” Church, were mentioned, this expression, in 
reality, meant no morethan an aggregate of National Churches, 
each one of which was limited by the frontiers of its own coun- 
try ; and, in no point of view, representing a living whole—an 
organically associated unity. In the same manner there were, 
and there still are, in “reformed ” Switzerland only Cantonal 
Churches. It is, however, as a Protestant theologian correctly 
remarks, untrue and perplexing to speak of a “unity,” 
when it only represents “something present in one’s 
thoughts ;” and where we can point to nothing in which 
this assumed unity manifests itself. “Unity” and “similarity,” 
or “relationship,” are very different ideas.! 

Nationalities are certainly not the products of accident ; 
they are not the children of a blindly-ruling force of nature. 
On the contrary, in the great world-plan of Divine Providence, 
every distinct people have their own peculiar problem to 
solve, their own assigned missivn to fulfil, They may mis- 
take it, and, by a perverted course, wander away from it, or, 
by their sloth and moral depravity, leave it unperformed— 
and of such we have examples before our eyes. This mission 
is determined-by the character of the people themselves, by 
the boundaries within which nature and circumstances confine 
them, and by their own peculiar endowments. The manner 
in which a nation undertakes to solve the problem re-acts, 
again, upon its position and character, determines its welfare, 
and decides the place it shall occupy in history. Each dis- 
tinct people forms an organically connected limb of the great 
body of humanity—it may be a more noble and distinguished 
limb—it may be a people destined to be the guide and 
educator of other nations—or it may be an inferior and a 
subservient limb; but, then, each nationality has an original 
right (within easily-recognised limits, and without interference 
on the part of any other equally privileged nation) to vindi- 
cate and freely develope itself. The suppression of a nation- 
ality, or of a manifestation of its existence within its natural 

1 Lecu er, “ Lehre vom heiligen Amte.,” 1857, p. 139. 


THE CHURCH A FAMILY OF NATIONS. 33 


and legitimate limits, is a crime against the order decreed by 
God, and which sooner or later brings its own punishment 
along with it. : 

Higher, however, than associated nationalities, stands that 
Community which unites the multiplicity of nationalities into 
one God-connected totality, which binds them together 
in one brotherly relation, and forms them into one great 
peoples’ family ; the Community that does this is—the Church 
of Christ. It is the will of its Founder that it should be just 
with every national peculiarity; “one shepherd and one 
flock.” It must, therefore, in its views, in its institutions, 
and in its customs, bear no peculiar national colour. It must 
neither be prominently German, nor Italian, nor French, nor 
English, nor to any of those nations show a preference; and 
still less must it desire to impress upon any one people the 
stamp of a foreign nationality. The thought will never 
_ occur to it to despoil or injure one people for the advantage 
of another; nor to molest them, as regards their rights and 
properties. The Church takes a nationality as it finds it, 
and bestows upon it a higher sanctity. The Church is far 
from desiring that all the nationalities received into its 
bosom, should bend down beneath the yoke of a monotonous 
uniformity, much less does it wish to annihilate the differences 
of races, or to put an end to historical customs. As the 
firmest, and at the same time the most pliable of all institu- 
tions, it is able to become “all things to all men,” and to 
educate every people, without doing violence to their 
nature. The Church enters into every nationality, purifies 
it, and only overcomes it, when assimilating it to itself. The 
Church overcomes it when it struggles against excrescences 
upon national character, and when it removes from the 
popular traits whatever had previously been intractable. It 
is like to the house of the father, in which, to use the words 
of Christ, “there are many mansions.” The Pole, the 
Sicilian, the Irishman, and the Maronite, have each their 
national character—a character not in common with each 
other—whilst still each of these is, in his own way, a good 
Catholic. Should there, however, be nationalities or races 

D 


a4. ‘THE PRINCIPLE OF CATHOLICITY. 


so deeply degraded, and so thoroughly corrupt, that the 
Church, with all-its appliances, can do nothing with them, 
then they must gradually die out, and give place to others. 

There is a reciprocal gain. As each new and vigorous 
population enters into the circle of the Church, the Church 
becomes not merely numerically, locally, and externally 
strong, but also inwardly and dynamically enriched. Every 
people, in whatever way gifted, gradually contributes its 
share in religious experiences, in peculiar ecclesiastical 
customs and arrangements, in its interpretation of Christian 
doctrine, in its impress upon life and science. It adds all 
these to the great Church capital—to that which is the 
product of former times and older nationalities. Every 
Catholic people can learn from another, and may borrow 
from foreign nations institutions worthy of being imitated. 
This has often already happened. It has occurred, too, even 
in the most recent times, and mostly with an evident bless- 
ing; and it will for the future (with the advantage of rapidly 
increasing communication, and the greater means for recip- 
rocal knowledge) take place to a much greater extent. In 
this sense, populations long since degenerated have continued 
_to exercise a beneficial influence. Even still the Church 
feels the operations of the old African and Egyptian Churches 
of the first century. 

The course which the history of Christianity has taken from 
the beginning, even to the present day, may be thus measured: 

With the first issuing forth of the Christian Church, from 
the maternal bosom of the Jewish, there developed itself, as 
a fundamental law of Church life, the principle of Catholicity, 
that is, of a world-religion, of a world-Church, of one that 
has space and air, laws and liberty, for all nations; which 
summons all, and receives into itself all who obey its call. 
This principle is, however, in reality superhuman; and it 
can only be maintained among men by institutions to which 
strength from above is given, and with which a permanent 
blessing abides. It will always elicit the most violent resist- 
ance on the part of natural humanity. The centrifugal 
forces and tendencies of individual nations are aroused; they 


SINGULAR POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 35 


tear themselves loose; they make for themselves a creed, and 
manage themselves, ecclesiastically, according to their own 
plan and fancy; and then have to experience what is to be 
their own special history, which is found to be dependent on 
the fact of original separation from the Church, modified by 
the character of the nation, and of the doctrine it has 
accepted. As to the Church, it proceeds on its path; the 
majority remains faithful to it; new members replace those 
that have fallen off; and it approaches slowly, yet with a 
firm step (for with its great losses there are still great com- 
pensations and advantages), and so it at last arrives at its 
goal—absolute Catholicity. That goal is still far distant; 
and the Church will only have reached it when it shall have 
an abiding place in every part of the earth, and when the 
words of Malachi (i. 11,) shall be completely fulfilled. 

So singular is the position of the Catholic Church, both in 
the past and the present, that no other religion, or religious 
society can, even in the most remote manner, be compared 
with it. There are, indeed, besides the Catholic, two other 
religions, which, since they have passed beyond the bound- 
aries of one nation or state, may make a claim to the title of 
being “a world-religion:” these are the Mahommedan and 
the Bhuddist.?, If we look to Islaminism, we find it never 


1“ For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is 
great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there 
is offered to my name a clean oblation.” 

? Bhuddism is usually mentioned as the most numerous of all-religions ; 
and counting the entire of China as being Bhuddist, it is said to have 
five hundred millions. This, however, is incorrect. The Bhuddist religion 
in China is, in fact, only tolerated; and to ask a Chinese whether he is 
a Bhuddist or not, would be, as Wassiliew (in the ‘‘ Abhandlungen 
der Petersburger Akademie,” xi. 356) observes, absurd. The three 
religions of China are those of Confucius, Taosse, and Bhudda. They 
subsist not only by the side of one another, but they mingle with each 
other, and the Chinese occasionally take a part in all. It can therefore 
only be said that there are in China many Bhuddist confraternities, and 
that a great number of the people regularly, or from time to time, observe 
some Bhuddist rites. Hence it becomes indispensable, if we wish to 
compare the religions of mankind, with reference to the numbers of their 
disciples, to pass over that of the Bhuddists. 


D2 


36 CATHOLICISM THE ONLY WORLD-RELIGION. 


has exhibited the organic unity and brotherhood of a Church, 
and that it is split right asunder. The Sunnites are opposed 
to the Shiites; the head of the Sunnites, the Turkish, is 
hostile to the Shiite head, the Persian. Bhuddism is con- 
fined to Eastern Asia. It is in fact only a religion of the 
clergy. It knows only “ brotherhoods,” and has no congre- 
gations—there is no organic relation between the clergy 
and the laity; no Church powers, and no ceremonies of 
reception. 

Thus, then, is there the Catholic religion, which counts 
more disciples than all the other Christian communities 
taken together—nearly two hundred millions—and it is the 
only world-religion in the true sense of the word; and, as 
there was formerly only given but one world-religion, so is it 
at present, and so it will remain for ever! 


37 


THE PAPACY. 


Tuat a Church of nations is not able to maintain itself 
without a primate, without one supreme head, must be 
evident to every one; and history has demonstrated it. 

Every living totality requires a central point of union, a 
chief head, which shall hold its parts together. In the 
nature and structure of the Church it is established that this 
central point shall be a determined personality; the chosen 
bearer of an office corresponding to the nature of the thing 
and the requirements of the Church. 

He who declares: “I do not recognize the Pope—I, or 
the Church to which I belong, will stand for itself, the Pope 
is for us a stranger, his Church is not ours,’—he who 
declares this thereupon says: “ We separate ourselves from 
the Universal Church, we will be no longer members of that 
body.” : 

Or, if it is theologically maintained: “That there may be, 
and shall be no primacy in the Church; that the Papacy is 
an institution in contradiction with the will of Christ, that it 
is a usurpation,’—then that is only saying, in other words, 
that one Universal Church, comprehending a variety of 
nations, should not exist; that it ought to fall to pieces, and 
that the normal state of religion ought to be—that there 
should be as many various churches as there are nations or 
states. But that the state of this one Church should be that 


38 “THE INVISIBLE CHURCH.” 


of one composed of the scattered multitudinous fragments 
of several national or political churches, is such a church as 
cannot afford a shadow of claim either from higher authority, 
or be based upon a Biblical foundation; and, it may be 
added, there has not even the attempt been made to establish 
it theologically, as approved of by God. 

It lies in the nature of things, that a State Church, in its 
isolation, can no longer inspire piety, or evoke veneration ; 
that it appears as something conventional, from which, as 
soon as the political constraint that maintains it is withdrawn 
or crippled, one may separate with ease, and without any 
scruple of conscience. Thus the principle and law of 
Church-dismemberment being once for all sanctioned, new 
Church communites arise, the Sectarian system flourishes, 
and thedlogians, reflecting upon the article of faith which 
speaks of “one Universal Church,” in despair, betake them- 
selves to an abstraction, an idea, which they call “the 
invisible Church.” And so there must be euphonious sound- 
ing inanities of a hidden, holy community, a silent band of 
spirits—there must be fine phrases, that are culled but to cover 
over the abyss caused by the loss of the Church! ! 


1 Julius Miiller makes use of such phrases in his remarkable essay, 
“* The Universal Church,” in “‘ The German Journal of Christian Science,” 
1850, p. 14. It is naturally easy for him to show what is untenable and 
erroneous in the recent efforts of Lutheran theologians to make out a 
visible Church confined to the professors of the pure Lutheran doctrine ; 
and he is able also to demonstrate that the Reformation had forced them 
out of a ‘‘ visible,” and compelled them to the conception of an “ invisible 
Church.” But when he wishes to establish this idea he can give to his 
readers nothing more than solemn sounding and hollow phraseology. He 
tells us of ‘ta silent band of spirits, independent of space and time ; 
conscious of itself, but free from all guildship with external institu- 
tions; as distant and yet near, as scattered and yet gathered together, 
as unknown and yet known, permeating the variety of Church confessions 
and constitutions, and in all places, wherever it is, carrying with it the 
consciousness that this Band is the highest that has been formed on 
earth,” and so forth! So then ‘ this silent spirit band” has really been 
formed upon this earth, and is ‘‘ conscious of itself,” and so forth. When 
or where was it then formed? By what signs can one know the members 
of “the band,” or can they recognize each other? Soberly and pro- 


POETICAL IDEA OF THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 39 


The more distracted and forlorn is the actual condition of 
a Church, so much the more poetical and enthusiastic becomes 
the talk of unity and love in mysterious undiscoverable 
regions, where the invisible Church is said to be at home! 


saically expressed, the matter will stand thus: ‘“‘ It may be assumed that 
in every one of the various Christian communities some well-meaning 
pious souls are to be found, earnestly seeking for salvation, and for them 
we must hope that, with God’s grace, they will find it.” But no man of 
common sense can, for that world-institution, the one Universal Church, 
with its settled doctrines, and its means of Salvation, find a compensation 
in the fancy that has been feigned about ‘a band of spirits,” and which 
may be compared to the stone that Rhea presented to her husband 
in place of a child—a false notion, enveloped in the swaddling clothes of 
rhetoric! By Jean Paul (Richter) the advice was once given to a 
Swedish pastor in winter, to walk up and down in his room and eat 
barley sugar, and thus have on his tongue, and before all his senses, a 
notion of lovely Italy and its gardens, H. Miiller thus advises his 
followers to take his ‘‘ still spirit band” into their mouths, and then to 
fancy they have with them ‘“‘ the-Church.” That the visible Church has 
also its invisible portion—and precisely that which is best and holiest in 
it is invisible—that is a fact which may be taken as understood. But it 
is indeed something very different to rend asunder the soul and body of 
the one Church, and oppose them to each other as two Churches, in 
order to be able to withdraw into this “ silent band of spirits ;” that so it 
happens when one has quarrelled with the Universal Church, and made 
the unpleasant discovery that the branch to which he adheres is rent 
away, that it no longer belongs to the tree, and is suffering for want of 
the living sap. The sharp-sighted Richard Rothe (‘‘Anfinge der 
Christl. Kirche,” p. 100) has openly said, ‘‘ An invisible Church is a 
contradictio in adjecto. In no way can it be made a substantiality. It 
suffers from one of two evils—either the expression is quite unsuitable 
to it, or it has in itself no real existence. The idea was first formed 
when it was sought to give a factitious notion of a Church in its full 
development, and that idea was acted upon when the idea of leaving the 
Catholic Church was carried into effect.” That the whole theory of an 
invisible Church is self-destructive for the community which desires 
seriously to adopt it, is a fact that becomes more and more generally 
acknowledged. It is said in the ‘* Gottin Gel. Anzeigen,” 1848, p. 224, 
‘“* With this theory of an invisible Church something truly sectarian has 
found its way into Protestantism; something that has shown itself as 
self-destructive ; and it is only to the circumstance that it has never come 
to a general recognition, we are indebted for finding limits set to its self- 
destructiveness.” 


40 THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. 


“The silent spirit band” has, in sooth, neither hand nor foot ; 
it speaks not, hears not; it gives forth neither doctrine, nor 
discipline, nor the administration of Ecclesiastical means of 
grace. All these being matters that may, indeed, be dis- 
pensed with, since not one of “the spirits” knows anything 
of the other, nor can act upon another, either for good or for 
evil. 

It is well known that, in order to escape from subjection 
to the Papal authority, the following phrase was adopted at 
the time of the Reformation, and has again been recently 
brought into vogue: ‘We who have separated ourselves 
recognize only Christ as the head of our Church.” And 
with this it has been intended openly to declare, or such, at 
least, as an inevitable consequence is to be said: “ There 
may be, and there shall be no earthly office, which shall 
confer upon its possessor the supreme guidance of the 
Church,” or, “ No one is entitled to guide the common affairs 
of many particular churches connected together, and forming 
one Whole. For the guidance of individual communities or 
local churches, and for the conduct of some ecclesiastical 
departments, there may be offices, and earthly bearers for 
them; but as. regards the guidance of the whole Church, 
there shall be no office, and no bearer of such an office. 
That is a place which must always remain empty.” A — 
suitable symbol of this theory (in accordance with which 
the head of the Church can only be in Heaven, and never 
must come too near it on earth, lest His presence might be 
an inconvenience) may be found in that stately empty arm- 
chair which is still to be seen in the magnificent ancient 
Gothic cathedral of Glasgow, and that, to the inexpressible 
disappointment of the spectator, is placed upon the very 
spot where formerly stood the high altar. Thus had the 
Manicheans, in their halls of assembly, “the Bema”—a 
pulpit always empty—and for them the representative of 
their invisible Lord and Master, and before which their 
believing members prostrated themselves on the earth. 

When a community says: “Christ alone is the head of | 
our Church,” it is at the same time, in other words, saying: 





PROGRESS OF PROTESTANT DISORGANIZATION. Al 


“ Separation and isolation constitute a principle of the Church 
—such is its normal condition.” When, in common life, a 
person says, “I leave that to God, He may provide for it,” 
the meaning of such words is at once appreciated. It is to 
the effect, “I will trouble myself no more about the matter, it 
does not concern me.” When, for example, the Church of 
Greece declared, “ No one shall be the head of the Church, 
but Christ alone,” the declaration ultimately resulted in this, 
“ We provide only for ourselves, and do not trouble ourselves 
about other Churches. Christ may see to them, and do with 
them as He pleases.” And so, under the mask of piously 
sounding phrases, we find the most common-place national 
selfishness. 

Church communities have, in this respect, moved upon a 
declining path. At first, it was said by the Byzantines, 
“We recognize only Patriarchs, and each of these governing 
a portion merely of the Church; but no Pope, no head of 
the Patriarchs.” Then came the English Church, and it 
said,“ Neither Pope nor Patriarchs, but merely Bishops.” 
Upon their side, the Protestants of the Continent declared, 
“No Bishops either, but merely pastors, and above them the 
sovereion of the country.” Subsequently came the new 
Protestant sects of England, with the declaration, “ We 
have no need of pastors, but only preachers.” Finally 
appeared “the Friends” (the Quakers), and many more new 
communities who had made the discovery “ that preachers, 
also, are only an evil, and that every man should be his 
own prophet, teacher, and priest.” One step still further 
downward has to be made. It has not yet come to pass, but 
already in the United States they are considering about it. 

Let us now approach somewhat nearer to the institution 
of the Papacy, which is comparable with no other; and let 
us cast a glance at its history. Like to all living things, 
like to the Church itself of which it is the crown and the 
corner-stone, the Papacy has passed through an historical 
development full of the most manifold and surprising 
vicissitudes. But in this its history is the law which lies at 
the foundation of the Church—the law of continual develop- 


42 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY. 


ment—of a growth from within outwards. The Papacy had 
to pass through all the changes and circumstances of the 
Church, and to enter with it into every process of construc- 
tion. Its birth begins with two mighty, significant, and far- 
extending words of the Lord. He to whom these words 
were addressed, realised them in his own person and actiens, 
and planted the institution of the infant Church in the 
central point—at Rome. There it silently grew, occulto velut 
arbor aevo; and in the oldest time it only showed itself forth 
on peculiar occasions; but the outlines of the power and the 
ecclesiastical authority of the Roman Bishops were ever 
constantly becoming more evident, and more prominent. 
The Popes were, even in the time of the Roman Emperors, 
the guardians of the whole Church, exhorting and warning 
in all directions, disposing and judging, “binding and 
loosing.” Complaints were not seldom expressed of the use 
which, in particular cases, Rome had made of its power. Re- 
sistance was offered, because the Pope was supposed to have 
been deceived; an appeal was preferred to him, when it was 
believed he had been better informed; but there was no 
refusal to obey hiscommands. In general, his interference in 
Church affairs was less necessary; and the reins of Church 
discipline needed less to be drawn tightly, so long as the 
general Church, with few exceptions, was found within the 
limits of the Roman Empire, when it was so firmly kept 
together by the strong bands of the civil order, that there 
could neither be occasion nor prospect of success to any re- 
action on the part of various nationalities, which, on the 
whole, were broken and kept down by Roman domination. 
Out of the chaos of the great Northern migrations, and 
the ruins of the Roman Empire, there gradually arose a new 
order of states, whose central point was the Papal See. 
Therefrom inevitably resulted a position not only new, but 
very different from the former. The new Christian Empire 
of the West was created and upheld by the Pope. The, 
Pope became constantly more and more (by the state of 
affairs, with the will of the princes and of the people, and 
through the power of public opinion) the Chief Moderator 


ee 


DECLINE OF THE PAPAL POWER. 43 


at the head of the European commonwealth—and, as such, 
he had to proclaim and defend the Christian law of nations, 
to settle international disputes, to mediate between princes 
and people, and to make peace between belligerent states. 
The Curia became a great spiritual and temporal tribunal, 
In short, the whole of Western Christendom, formed, in a 
certain sense, a kingdom, at whose head stood the Pope and 
the Emperor—the former, however, with continually increas- 
ing and far preponderating authority. The efforts of the ~ 
Hohenstaufen Emperors to subject Italy, and with Italy also 
the Papal See, led to a prolonged conflict, from which both 
powers, the imperial and the papal, come forth weakened 
and wounded ; for ever since then the position of the Papacy, 
in its political relations, has been more difficult and un- 
favourable. The Papacy saw itself compelled to lean more 
and more upon France, and, when the aspiring plans of 
Boniface VIII. were frustrated, it naturally passed into 
French hands, and upon French soil; and a resistance on 
the part of other nations was then inevitable; its high 
position over peoples and princes could no longer be success- 
fully maintained. The authority of the Papal See sank still 
lower through the Franco-Italian schism. Then followed 
the reformatory efforts of the Councils, in the fifteenth 
century, which were mainly directed against the oppres- Nels 
sion of the Curia; and, subsequently, the Popes became 
entangled in the devious path of Italian politics, The 
former social-political, universal power led, when it was 
attempted to be realised, to troubles and disputes, and then 

it went utterly to wreck in the storms of the age uf the — 
Reformation. 

From that time forth the whole of Europe assumed a new 
form. Powerful and internally united political bodies, each 
having a special interest, and pursuing a fixed policy of its 
own, came into the foreground, and a new system of “a 
balance of power” was formed amidst severe struggles. The 
Papal See could no longer be the regulator of a European 
Commonwealth, and the centre of a general polity. It could 
not be so, amid the confusion of merely political interests, 


44 MISSION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 


and changes of Catholic and Protestant states—sometimes 
in alliance, and sometimes hostilely opposed to each other. 
The popes withdrew themselves more and more to their 
purely ecclesiastical domain. They could stand in no 
other relation to the new principles (the Territorial system, 
and such like), which had found their way, through Pro- 
testantism, into the laws of European states and peoples. 
Thus has the matter stood to the present time. On eccle- 
siastical grounds the Papal See is, at present, as strong and 
powerful as ever, and as free in its action as it ever had been. 
Dangers and perplexities await it in temporal affairs—in the 
position of Italy, and in the possession of the States of the 
Church. 

What is now, and in point of fact, the actual function and 
vocation of the Papacy, and why is the whole existence of 
the Church at this time, and in future, so inseparably bound 
up with the existence of the papal authority, and with its 
free exercise ? . 

The Catholic Church is a most opulent, and, at the same 
time, a most multifarious organism. Its mission is nothing 
- Jess than to be the teacher and moulder of all nations; and 
however much it may find itself hampered in this task; 
however limited may be the sphere of action allowed to it, 
by this or that government, its task always remains the same, 
and the Church requires and possesses an abundance of power 
to attain its purpose: it has a great number of various insti- 
tutions, all directed to the same end; and with these it is 
continually creating new. All these powers, these institu- 
tions, these spiritual communities, stand in need of a supreme 
guidance, with a firm and strong hand, in order that they 
may work harmoniously together; that they may not dege- 
nerate, and may not lose sight of their destination; that they 
may not suicidally turn their capabilities, one against the other, 
or against the unity and welfare of the Church. It is only 
an ecclesiastical primacy can fulfil this mission—it is the 
Papacy alone that is in a position to keep every member in 
its own sphere, and to pacify every disturbance that may 
arise. 


MEASURE AND EXTENT OF THE PAPAL POWER. 45 


Besides this, there is another task, just as difficult as it is 
important, which it lies upon the Papal See to fulfil. 

It is the duty, namely, of the Pope to represent and to 
defend the rights of individual Churches against the domina- 
tion of states and monarchs ; to watch that the Church be not 
altered in its character, nor crippled in its power, by be- 
coming interwoven with the State. For this purpose, with 
the voice and action of the church immediately concerned, 
the intervention of the Supreme Church authority becomes 
indispensable; since this stands above and outside of the 
conflicts, which may possibly arise between any one church 
and the state; and it solely is capable, in its high and inac- 
cessible position, and in possession of the richest experiences, 
won in centuries of ecclesiastical government, to specify . 
accurately the claims of both parties, and to serve as a stay 
and support to the weaker—to the one which otherwise 
must inevitably succumb before the manifold means of com- 
pulsion and seduction which lie at the command of modern 
states. 

It is, moreover, a beautiful, sublime, but certainly difficult 
mission of the Papal See—a mission only to be fulfilled by 
the strength of an enlightened wisdom and a comprehensive 
knowledge of mankind—and that is, to be just to the claims 
of individual nations in the Church; to comprehend their 
necessities, and restrain their desires within the limits re- 
quired by the unity of the Church. 

For all this there is wanted a power opulently endowed 
with manifold views and prerogatives. If there were a 
primacy of dignity and honour, without any real power, the 
Church would be but badly served. This is not the place to 
enumerate all the particular rights which the Pope exercises 
in the ordinary course of his administration over the Church. 
They may be found in every hand-book of ecclesiastical law. 
But concerning the measure and extent, the limitation or 
illimitability of the Papal power, a few words, amid the pre- 
vailing confusion of ideas on the subject, cannot be consi- 
dered as superfluous. 

Outside of the Catholic Church it has become almost a 


46 '° THE RESTRICTION OF PAPAL AUTHORITY. 


common form of speech—to brand the Papal power as being 
boundless, as being absolutist, as one which recognizes no 
law capable of controlling it. There is a great deal of talk 
of “Romish omnipotence,” or of one at least with a never 
unceasing pretension to universal dominion. Persons main- 
tain that “Rome never foregoes a claim which she has once 
put forward; that she keeps such constantly in view, and 
upon every favourable opportunity strives to enforce it.” All 
these representations and accusations are untrue and unjust. 
The Papal power is in one respect the most restricted that 
can be imagined, for its determinate purpose is manifest to 
all persons; and as the Popes themselves have innumerable 
times openly declared that purpose, “to maintain the laws and 
ordinances of the Church, and to prevent any infringement 
of them.” The Church has long since had its established 
ordinances, and its legislation determined on, even to the 
most minute points. ‘The Papal See is thus, then, before all 
others, called upon to give an example of the most rigid ad- 
herence to Church tenets; and it is only upon this condition 
that it can rely upon obedience to itself on the part of indi- 
vidual churches, or calculate upon the respect of the faithful. 
Hence every one thoroughly well grounded in a knowledge 
of ecclesiastical legislation can, in most cases, with certainty 
anticipate what the Papal decision will be. Besides this, a 
considerable portion of Church ordinances rests, according to 
the views of Catholics, on the Divine Commandment, and 
are consequently for every one, and of course for the Papal 
power also, not to be tampered with. The Pope cannot dis- 
pense with things which are commanded by Divine Law. 
This is universally acknowledged. What then can restrain 
the Pope? De Maistre says, “ Kverything—canons, laws, 
national customs, monarchs, tribunals, national assemblies, 
prescription, remonstrances, negotiations, duty, fear, pru- 
dence, and especially public opinion, the Queen of the 
World.” 
In another respect, the Papal authority is certainly truly 
sovereign and free, one, too, which, according to its nature 
and purpose for extraordinary accidents and exigencies, 


EXTRAORDINARY APPLICATION OF CHURCH POWER. 47 


must be endowed with an altogether extraordinary power to 
control every mere human right, and to permit or ordain 
exceptions to general rules. It may occur that serious em- 
barrassments, new situations of things, may be placed before 
the Church; and to which existing ecclesiastical ordinances 
do not extend, and in which a solution can be found only by 
overstepping the regulations in force. If the necessity of 
the case requires it, “the Pope,” as Bossuet says, “can do 
all,”! of course with the exception of what is contrary to the 
Divine Law. 

The most conspicuous instance of an_ extraordinary 
application of the highest Church power, because the weal of 
the Church urgently required it, was the step taken by Pius 
VII., on the conclusion of the French Concordat, in the 
year 1801. With a stroke of the pen (by his Bull of the 
29th November of the same year), he deprived of their 
dignity thirty-seven French bishops who had refused to 
resign. He, too, abolished all the episcopal churches for 
ever, with their Chapters and privileges; and he erected, at 
the same time, ten Metropolitan sees and fifty Bishoprics. 
A proceeding so unprecedented, such an abolition of well- 
founded rights, was only to be justified by the most extreme 
necessity—by the imperative duty of creating a new system 
of order out of the deeply-convulsed Church of France. 
Pius himself declared to individuals in whom he reposed his 
confidence, that, of all the circumstances in his eventful life, 
“the act which he then found himself compelled to perform 
was that which had cost him the greatest effort, and caused 
him the deepest pain”; but the necessity of the measure he 
had taken was so obvious, that everyone in the Church, 
with the exception of those affected by it, had approved of 
his conduct. 

The delusion that the Papal See has arrogated to itself a 
despotic and absolute power, and exercised it wherever it 
was not restrained by fear, is so generally diffused, especially 
in Germany and England—it is so customary to proclaim 
the boundlessness of that power, and the defencelessness in 


1 Defens. Declar.,” 2, 20; “ Oeuvres,” vol. xxxiii. p, 354. 


48 ' PIUS VII. ON PAPAL AUTHORITY. 


which individual Churches and persons find themselves 
when opposed to it, that I cannot refrain from exposing the 
error by a few decisive testimonies. Let us hear on this 
matter one who was a pope himself—Pius VII. :— 

“The Pope,” he says, in an official document drawn up in 
his name, and having reference to Germany!—“ The Pope is 
bound by the nature and the institutions of the Catholic 
Church, whose head he is, within certain limits, which he dare 
not overstep, without violating his conscience, and abusing 
that supreme power which Jesus Christ has confided to him to 
employ for the building up, and not the destruction, of His 
Church. Inviolable limits for the head of the Church are 
the dogmas of the Catholic faith, which the Roman bishops 
may, neither directly nor indirectly, violate; and although 
in the Catholic Church faith has always been regarded as 
unalterable, but discipline as alterable, yet the Roman 
Bishops have, with respect even to discipline, in their actual 
conduct, always held certain limits sacred, although by this 
means they acknowledge the obligation never to undertake 
any novelty in certain things, and also not to subject other 
parts of discipline to alterations, unless upon the most im- 
portant and irrepugnable grounds. With respect to such prin- 
ciples, the Roman Bishops have never thought that they could 
admit any change in those parts of discipline which are 
directly ordained of Jesus Christ Himself; or of those 
which, by their nature, enter into a connection with dogmas; 
or of those which may have been attacked by erroneous 
believers to sustain these innovations; or also in those parts 
on which the Roman Bishops, on account of the conse- 
quences that might result to the disparagement of religion 
and of Catholic principles, do not think themselves entitled 
to admit a change, whatever the advantages might be 
offered, or whatever the amount of evils might be threat- 
ened. ; 

“So far as concerns other parts of Church discipline, 

1‘ Esposizione dei sentimenti de Sua Santita,” in the treatise, ‘‘ Die 


Neuesten Grundlagen der Deutsch-Katholischen Kirchenvervassung.” 
Stuttgard, 1821, p. 334. 


’ 

VIEWS OF AN AMERICAN ARCHBISHOP. | 49 

Ss 

which are not comprehended in the classes above-men- 
tioned, the Roman Bishops have felt no hesitation in 
making many changes; but they have always been grounded 
on the principles on which every well-ordered society rests ; 
and they have only given their consent to such changes 
when the need or the welfare of the Church required them.” 

I will here quote the words of an individual, who, to a 
certain extent, speaks in the name of the whole Church of a 
country, which is, in point of fact, the youngest member of 
the Universal Church. He is the first prelate of the 
American Church—the present Archbishop of Baltimore, 
Father Patrick Kenrick. “The power of the Pope,” he 
says, “is chiefly employed in maintaining the general laws 
already established, regulating the mutual relations of the 
clergy, and mitigating the strictness of disciplinary observ- 
ance, whensoever local or individual causes demand it. The 
faithful are sufficiently protected against the abuse of power, 
by the freedom of their own conscience, which is not bound 
to yield obedience to authority when flagrantly abused. The 
Pope only addresses conscience: his laws and censures are only 
powerful inasmuch as they are acknowledged to be passed 
under a divine sanction. No armies or civil officers are 
employed to give them effect; and in case of flagrant abuse 
of authority, he loses the only influence by which they can 
become effectual.” 

The work of the Archbishop is, even for Europe, a 
remarkable phenomenon. It shows how the two millions of 
Catholics who live in the free states of America regard their 
relations both to the Pope and the Republic. “The 
obedience,” says Kenrick, ‘‘ which we owe to the Pope has 
regard only to matters in which the salvation of souls is con- 
cerned—it has nothing to do with the loyalty and allegiance 
which belong to the civil government. The Church is 
indifferent as to the various forms of political administration. 
The acknowledgment of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome 


1“The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated.” Philadelphia, 
1845, p. 358. 
E 


l 
50 THE TEMPORAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THE POPE. 


_ cannot have the most remote connexion with any danger to 
our republican institutions, but will much more serve to 
render them stronger and more lasting, since they will 
moderate the enjoyment of civil liberty by moral restraints, 
and so prevent the evils of licentiousness and anarchy.! 

There is now lying before me the most recent production 
‘of a very respectable individual, who stands at the head of 
an important party in Holland—this is Groen van Prinsterer. 
He declares against Stahl, who had maintained, “that the 
temporal sovereignty of the Pope, and the persecution of 
heretics by the temporal power, were not dogmas, or articles 
of faith, with respect to which Rome could assert its claim 
to infallibility.” Groen will not admit this; he says, “ Rome 
must, in principle, acknowledge the independence and 
sanctity of the temporal powers; it must no longer claim the 
right of disposing of heretical kingdoms, or of altering the 
law of succession, et cetera: it must, too, acknowledge that 
the Bull of Boniface VIII., with the assertion as to the two 
swords at the command of the Church—the spiritual and 
temporal—no longer affords an authentic resumé of the long 
sought for Roman omnipotence; and, finally, it must recall 
its protest against the Peace of Westphalia. And when all 
this has been done,” he adds, “ Rome will have spoken its 
own condemnation.”? 

My first reason for selecting Herr Groen van Prinsterer, 
out of a whole troop of persons entertaining similar opinions, 
is, that his is one of the most recent declarations on the same 
subject which I have been able to find; and next, because, 
in point of fact, there are hundreds of our literati who do not 
know that of which he also is either actually ignorant, or 
which he intentionally ignores. 

In the first place, the matter is put thus: “Rome must 
acknowledge the independence of the Temporal Power, and 
renounce the right of deposing non-Catholic monarchs.” 
But this has been done long since. Cardinal Antonelli, 


1 “ Kenrick’s Primacy,” p. 475. 
2“ Le Parti Anti-revolutionnaire et Confessionel.” Amsterdam, 1860. 


INDEPENDENCE OF THE TEMPORAL POWER. 51 


Prefect of the Propaganda (under whom the Irish Bishops 
are placed), addressed, on the 23d June, 1791, a Rescript to 
the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, wherein it was said :— 
“We must very carefully distinguish between the real rights 
of the Apostolic See, and what have been, with an inimical 
intention, in modern times imputed to it. The Roman See. 
has never taught that faith was not to be kept with heretics; 
or, “that an oath of allegiance made to kings, in a state of 
separation from the Catholic Community, could be broken ;” 
or, “that it was allowable for a Pope to interfere with their 
temporal rights and possessions.” This Rescript has been 
often enough printed, and I do not know what could be said 
more clearly or distinctly.’ 

Some years ago, the Bishops of the United States, in 
North America, when assembled in their fifth council, pre- 
pared an address to the Pope, in which, when complaining of 
their numerous “calumniators” in the country, they expressed 
themselves in the following terms: —“ They (the calumniators) - 
strive to cast suspicion and bring the odium of Government 
on us, their Catholic fellow-citizens, although our fathers 
poured out their blood like water in defence of liberty, 
against a sectarian oppressor; and falsely assert that we are 
enslaved to a foreign prince—namely, under the political and 
civil authority of the Roman Pontiff; and that we are faithless 
to the Government.”2 We see here the same things alleged 
which have been a thousand times before stated in Germany, 
and that still continue to be repeated. The Archbishop of 
Baltimore, who communicates this fact, adds: “ This dis- 
claimer of all civil power in the Pontiff, which many of us 
have made on our oaths, was graciously received by Gregory 
XVI. Can any further evidence be required that the 
authority which we recognise in him is spiritual, and nowise 
inconsistent with the most unqualified allegiance to the civil 
Government ?” 

Four and seventy French Bishops, with two Cardinals at 


1 See ‘Ami de la Religion,” vol. xviii.; also in the works of Arch- 
bishop Affre of Paris, “ Essai sur la Suprematie temp. du Pape,” p. 508. 
2 Kenrick, p. 434, where he appends the Latin text of the Council. 


E2 


52 DECLARATIONS OF THE FRENCH AND IRISH BISHOPS. 


their head, presented, on the 10th April, 1826, a memorial to 

the King, in which they declared that they held fast to the 

old doctrine of the French Church upon the rights of their. 
monarchs; and of their full and absolute independence in 

temporal matters of any authority, direct or indirect, on the 

part of every spiritual power. Archbishop Affre has reprinted 

this document.! 

A short time before this, on the 25th January, 1826, the 
Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland put forth a similar 
declaration, in which they renounced, in the strongest terms, 
any jurisdiction or power in the Pope to interfere in tem- 
poral matters within the British Kingdom.? Asa matter of 
course, both these Declarations were made with the consent 
of the Papal See. 

Secondly, it is briefly to be observed, with respect to the 
Bull of Boniface VIIL., and the theory therein put forward, 
as to the Spiritual and Temporal Power, that the retractation 
or abrogation of the same had been made a few years after 
its assertion; and that, too, by Pope Clement V.* Arch- 
bishop Affre of Paris, who, in the discharge of his pastoral 
functions, afterwards died an heroic death at “the barricades,” 
has, in reply to La Mennais, clearly shewn that the Bull of 
Clement could recall nothing else than the assertion made in 
the Bull of Boniface—viz., that the exercise of the Temporal 
was subject to the correction of the Spiritual.‘ 

Thirdly, and finally, “ Rome is to recall its Protest against 
the Peace of Westphalia.” This Protest is, in fact, a favourite 
theme, which is regularly discussed whenever an attack is to 
be made upon the Pope, or the Catholic Church in Germany. 
In the year 1846, this Protest was brought forward as a 
powerful argument against me in the Bavarian Chambers. 
Not long since, in the Prussian Chambers, Herr von Ger- 
lach resisted a proposal of the Catholic Deputies (the justice 
of which, as well as I recollect, he was obliged himself to 


1 ArrrE, ‘ Essai,” p. 505. 

? Unam Sanctam, so it stands in the Lib. vi. Decretal. 
* The Bull ‘‘ Meruit,” in the Collection of Decretal. 

* Arrre, ‘ Essai,” p. 340. 


PROTEST AGAINST THE PEACE OF WESTPHALIA. 53 


admit), by a reference to this very Protest. It will, there- 
fore, be allowable for me to go a little further back, and to 
enter somewhat more minutely into the true state of the case. 
I must here make what at first sight may be regarded as a 
paradoxical confession, when I say that I rejoice that there 
should have been, at that time, one man found in Europe, 
who, in the name of God and of Christian conscience, entered 
a Protest against the Peace of Westphalia; and that this 
man should have been precisely the one who was the bearer 
of the highest ecclesiastical office upon earth. The Pope, 
indeed, did not protest for the reason that he would not 
admit that there could be any peace between Catholics and 
Protestants—the whole course of subsequent history has 
proved the contrary—but he protested because it was for 
him a sacred duty to resist the deeply immoral and unchris- 
tian principles that lay at the foundation of the religious 
stipulations of that entire Treaty of Peace. I allude to the 
territorial system—to the principle “that to whomsoever 
the country belongs, to him also belongs its religion.”! Un- 
happily ! they were German Theologians and German Jurists 
who first brought forward this doctrine, hitherto unheard of 
in the Christian world—namely, that it was a right of 
princes to alter the religion of their subjects, as it seemed 
good to them; and to change Catholics into Protestants, and 
to make Calvinists out of Lutherans! It is well known 
how willingly princes made use of this new doctrine. In the 
states of the Middle Ages there certainly was religious com- 
pulsion; but how completely different were the ideas and 
practice of former times when compared with the new! In 
those times people and-princes were members of the Catho- 
lic Church, by the side of which none other existed. All 
were agreed that the State, by its close connection with the 
Church, could tolerate no falling off from it; could allow. no 
new religion to be introduced; and that every attempt of the 
kind was an attempt against existing social order. Every 
heretical doctrine which broke out in the Middle Ages, either 
had distinctly avowed, or bore, as its inevitable consequence, 
1 “ Cujus est regio, illius est religio.” 


54 CHURCH AND STATE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 


a revolutionary character. It must, in proportion as it 
attained influence and authority, bring with it a dissolution 
of the existing condition of the State, and effect a political 
and social revolution. The sects of the Gnosties, the Ca- 
thari, and the Albigenses, which especially elicited the harsh 
and relentless legislation of the Middle Ages against heresy, 
and that had to be resisted in sanguinary wars, were the 
Socialists and Communists of that time. They attacked 
marriage, family, and property. Had they been triumphant, 
the consequences would have been general ruin—a collapse 
into barbarism and heathenish licentiousness. As to the 
Waldenses, it is well known to every one acquainted with 
history that their principles concerning oaths, and the right 
of the State to inflict punishments, were such as could find 
no place in the European world at that time. 

In the Middle Ages the laws and rights in religious matters 
were the same for all. It was everywhere taught that not 
only every bishop, but the Pope himself, must, should he 
have fallen into erroneous doctrines, be deposed; and, in case 
of his perseverance in error, he must, like every other, be 
condemned. The King knew that a separation from the 
Church would inevitably cost him his crown, and that he 
would cease to be sovereign over a Catholic people. Never, 
during the thousand years before Luther, was an attempt 
even made by a monarch to introduce into his states a new 
religion, or a new doctrine, or in any form to separate himself 
from the Church. If there ever was one, like the Emperor 
Frederick II., who was, in fact, an unbeliever, yet he had 
it publicly denied, and got a testimony of his orthodoxy 
made out for him by bishops and theologians. 

All this was changed with the Reformation. The Reformers 
committed to temporal princes from the beginning “the 
authority ”—that is to say, power over the religion of their 
country and their subjects. It was the duty and the right 
of “the authority” to plant the new Church and the new 
Gospel, to root out Popery, and to allow no strange doctrine 
to spring up. This was at every opportunity impressed 
upon temporal sovereigns. There resulted, indeed, from this 


CHANGE EFFECTED AT THE REFORMATION. 55 


an irreconcileable contradiction ; for Luther at the same time 
represented it as a sacred duty for every individual to please 
himself in religious matters—to place himself above every 
authority, and, before all things, above the Church, and even 
to disregard princes! ‘ Notwithstanding every human 
command,” he says, “each one must determine his own faith 
for himself. Even a miller’s wench, or a child nine years of 
age, who decides according to the Gospel” (that is to say, 
according to the new dogma of Justification), “may under- 
stand the Scriptures better than Pope, and Councils, and all 
scholars collected together!” In another place he says: 
“You must decide for yourself; your own life is at stake” 
—and so forth.! Luther never attempted to reconcile this 
contradiction. In practice he adhered to it; and it became 
the religious Protestant doctrine, that princes had the highest 
juridical office over religious doctrines and the Church; and 
that it was their right and their vocation to suppress every 
opinion in matters of faith that should differ from their own. 
In this opinion Lutherans and Reformers were consentaneous. 
In the Augsburg Confession Melancthon, who was at that 
time inclined to uphold Episcopal authority, or to help in 
re-establishing it, reckons it as the office of the Bishop to 
judge of doctrine; but he had already, in his “ Apology,”? 
declared that it is to kings and princes that the protection and 
maintenance of the pure doctrine is, as an office, committed 
by God. The Lutheran princes assumed, then, to them- 
selves expressly this right in the Preface to the Con- 
cordian-Book ; and haye, since then, exercised it to the widest 
extent. The Calvinistic writings upon the creed give to 
“the authority” the right of opposing false doctrine, and 
defending the true.* Luther himself reckons it as a matter 

1 LuTHerR’s Werke, Walch’s Ausgabe, xii., Sermon, v. 3, 1522; xi. 
1887. 

? At the end of the 9th Article. 

* The Swiss Confession in the 30th, the English in the 37th, the Scotch 
in the 24th, and the Belgic in the 36th Articles. In the Brandenburg 
Electorate this is placed at the head of the Confession of Faith. In the 
Confession of Basle it is said: ‘* Hoc officium gentili magistratui com- 
mendatum esse debet, ut vero Dei vicario.” For this reference is made 
to the example of the Jewish kings, who had abolished idolatry. 


56 RISE OF A NEW DESPOTISM. 


to his especial credit, that he had, in this respect, benefited 
the temporal Powers, who, in the Catholic Church, had 
been robbed of their good right ; and thus, by him, those in 
supreme authority were “ exalted, enlightened, and adorned.” 
The Danish Court-preacher, Masius, mentions it as a parti- 
cular advantage of the Lutheran religion, that, according to 
it, princes are “the highest vicegerents of God upon earth;” 
that they may at their pleasure appoint and depose the 
servants of the Church, and freely govern the whole terri- 
tory of ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies.2 This doctrine 
was long the prevailing one, and it still has its defenders ; for 
example, Petersen, who, after having assured us that the 
German people are the specific people of the New Testament, 
then proceeds to declare its “lords of the land” as the only 
possessors of power over the whole Christian world, and as 
those “in whom the Evangelical Church reverences the dele- 
gates of Christ.” 

And so arose a despotism, the equal of which has never 
before been seen.‘ The new system, as it was expounded by 


* Walch’s Ausg., xiv. 520; xix. 2287: “If any gratitude,” he says, 
‘from this scandalous and accursed world were to be gained, and I, 
Doctor Martin ‘Luther, had taught and done nothing else than this, that 
T have enlightened and adorned the temporal rule or ‘ authority’—and 
for this thing alone should men be favourable and thankful to me, since 
even my worst enemies well knew that a like understanding as to the 
temporal authority was completely concealed under the Papacy,” &c., 
&e., &c. The favour of princes was, in truth, not wanting to him. He 
gives another reason why princes and authorities ought to be especially 
grateful to him. Formerly, that is in Catholic times, they had felt great 
anxiety about executions. Many princes had, from religious scruples, 
and under the influence of their confessors, avoided signing numerous 
sentences of death ; but now, by Luther’s doctrine, they were perfectly 
tranquillized.—See ‘‘ Colloquia et Meditationes Lutheri.” Ed. Reben- 
stock, i. 147. 

2‘ Interesse principum circa religionem evangelicam.” — Hafn, 
1687, p. 31. 

3 “ Die Idee der Christlichen Kirche,” vol. iii., pp. 224-227. 

*To mention only one example: At the Westphalian Peace Con- 
gress, Wolfgang von Gemmingen, a deputy of the Imperial Equestrian 
Order, stated that the city of Oppenheim, pawned to the Palatinate, 
had, since the Reformation, been forced to change its religion ten times! 
—PFrannerI, “ Hist. pacis Westph.,” i., p. 42. 


ITS INFLUENCE ON THE GERMAN PEOPLE, 57 


theologians and jurists, was worse than the Byzantine practice; 
for there no attempt had ever been made to change the 
religion of the people. The Protestant princes were not 
merely Popes in their own country, but they were much 
more; and were able to do what no Pope had ever dreamed 
of attempting. Every Pope knew that the power he pos- 
sessed was a conservative one—that he held it to maintain the 
doctrine that had been transmitted to him, and that an 
attempt on his part to alter the teaching of the Church 
would infallibly be frustrated by a universal resistance. 
To the Protestant princes, however, it had been said—and 
they themselves believed and declared it—that their power 
in religious matters was entirely unlimited; and that, in the 
use of it, they need attend to no other standard than their own 
consciences. ‘They also, as a matter of course, declared that 
they were subject to “the Gospel,’ or the Holy Scriptures ; 
but then it was to the Scriptures according to their own 
interpretation of them, or that of the court-preachers of their 
selection. The Reformers had naturally so understood 
the matter, that the princes should proceed according to 
the advice of theologians, and that they would especially 
allow themselves to be guided in all questions of doctrine 
by the theological faculties of the universities of their 
country. But these changed, or were changed ; and as often 
as it pleased the sovereign to alter the religion of his terri- 
tory the old professors were dismissed, and new professors 
were summoned. 

With this new system of ecclesiastical and political power 
united in the person of the prince, was introduced a change 
of incalculable gravity in the condition of the entire German 
people. The distinction and the contrast between the two 
Powers, which, on the whole, had acted beneficently for the 
people, and which, through collisions and counterpoises, had 
aroused and maintained intellectual activity and political 
freedom, were now completely put an end to. The Church 
became altogether incorporated in the State, and was re- 
garded as a wheel in the great state machine. He who can 
exercise an absolute power over that which is noblest and, 


58 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUREAUCRATIC SYSTEM. 


for the most part, invisible—he who can so rule over religion 
and conscience—is also one who, if he chooses, can have at his 
disposal everything which the State can bestow or the people 
yield. With the establishment of the Consistories, as 
sovereign authorities ruling ecclesiastical affairs, began the 
development of Bureaucracy—of monarchical and political 
omnipotence—of Administrative Centralisation. As soon as 
ecclesiastical and religious affairs were placed in the hands 
of Government officers, a mechanical, clerk-like-scribbling 
system, and the benumbing spirit of a mere administrative 
machine, whose functions were to command and issue ordi- 
nances, took the place of a living organism—of an authority 
acting through moral motives. It went on then as it goes 
on still; the Bureaucratic system became a polypus, per- 
petually putting out new branches, and swallowing up more 
materials.! 

An inevitable consequence followed—a still more onerous 
system of: despotism weighed down upon the greater part of 
Germany. The Protestant people were oppressed by a 
slavery such as had never before existed, through their 
monarchical supreme Bishops. Pecuniary fines, imprison- 
ments, and banishments, were inflicted for non-appearance in 
church on Sunday, for not attending regularly at Communion, 
and for a few persons meeting together for the purpose of 
private edification. 

Upon this system of princely dominion over religion and 
conscience the Westphalian Peace had put its seal. This 


1 So remarks the well-known jurist, Leysrr (‘‘ Medit. ad Pandect.,” 
vol. vii., p. 292): ‘‘ In former times, and far even into the seventeenth 
century, the governmental business of the German princes was so 
limited that it could be disposed of by a few Councillors and a single 
College. But afterwards, and when, by the Peace of Westphalia, the 
territorial authority became so very widely extended, the business of the 
Administration had multiplied tenfold, and a crowd of Colleges, Courts, 
and official persons became necessary. It was then seen what influence 
must have upon the Government the committing into its hands the whole 
of the Church business and religious affairs.” The same Leyser also 
reminds us (vol. vi., p. 49), that ‘‘ the Protestant Consistories conducted 
themselves in a much more tyrannical manner than the Pope.” 


THE TERRITORIAL SYSTEM. 59 


Reformation Jaw was.only limited by the fixed normal year 
—1624. But, beyond the right of quiescent continuance 
guaranteed for that year, every Catholic might be compelled 
by his Protestant sovereign, and every Protestant by his 
Catholic sovereign, either to change his religion or to quit 
his country. The Protest of the Pope was, therefore, a 
solemn declaration that the fact of his envoy taking part in 
the Congress must not be regarded as an assent to its 
articles, which had, as their inevitable consequence, the 
compulsory secession of a number of Catholics from the 
Church.! It is true that the Pope in his Bull places himself 
in this exclusive stand-point, that every cession of Catholic 
bishoprics and Church property to Protestant princes, and 
every further extension of Protestantism, were things to 
which he could not give his approval, and against which he 
must endeavour to guard. This, under the circumstances of 
the times, was a course which the Supreme Pastor of the 
Church could not avoid taking. He stood there opposed to 
a system which, at the same time with a denial of the 
Church and its authority (and in consequence of that denial), 
had exalted into a principle of religious doctrine the 
arbitrary power of the Prince in ecclesiastical affairs, and 
the boundless dominion of the Prince over the consciences of 
mankind. With such a system a substantial peace was, in 
reality, not possible; it was nothing more than an armistice. 
Every advance of such a system, into countries hitherto 
Catholic, must be regarded as a calamity to be prevented at 
any cost. The terrible territorial system must first be 
moderated, and, in some measure, its destructive conse- 
quences obviated by custom, by public opinion, and by 
experience, before there could be expected a friendly, 
neighbourly feeling between Catholics and Protestants. In 
Rome, as in Germany, it was known right well that in 
purely Lutheran countries, like Sweden and Denmark, the 
punishment of death had been affixed to the exercise of the 
Catholic religion, and had, only a few years previously, been 


'Tnstr. P. O., 5, 30: ‘* Cum statibus immediatis cum jure territorii et 
superioritatis—etiam jus reformandi exercitium religionis competat.” 


60 AUTHORITY OF PRINCES OVER RELIGIOUS OPINION. 


carried into execution, by Gustavus Adolphus, on several 
young persons.! It-was known also that, in the symbolical 
books of the German Protestants, it was said to princes and 
kings: “ You are the lords and rulers over religion and the 
Church in your countries, and you have to regard in this 
matter no other limits than the Bible, as interpreted by your- 
selves, or by your chosen theologians.” It was, finally, also 
known that the authority of princes over religion was 
declared by Protestant theologians and jurists to be a real 
and essential constituent part of the sovereign power; and, 
therefore, that every prince must regard persons adhering to 
a religion different from his own, as in a state of permanent 
revolt against his lawful authority—as half-subjects, who 
perversely refused to acknowledge and yield obedience to 
the nobler and more perfect part of his governmental 
authority. This position of affairs must be taken into 
consideration when reference is made to a treaty by which 
so many Catholics, and so many territories and possessions 
formerly Catholic, were ceded to Protestant powers, and 
with scanty or very feeble security for freedom of con- 
science. At that time the Chief Pastor of the Church could, 
in reality, do nothing else than enter his Protest against 
partitions and concessions, the consequence of which must be 
a considerable number of souls being lost to the Church. 
Had the Pope taken up his former position—that which 
through the circumstances of the Middle Ages, and since the 
great emigration of the Northern nations had been occupied 
by him—his rejection of this Treaty would have been equi- 


1 Baaz, * Inventar. Eccl. Suegoth.” Lincop. 1642, p. 739. 

2 The jus circa sacra, and the jurisdictio Ecclesiastica constituted, it 
was said, the most costly and precious jewel of territorial superiority. 
See Saavurotra, “Sammlung d. Concl. Corp. Evang.,” ii 39. The 
statesman and historian, Lord Clarendon, designates the Church 
supremacy of the Kings of England “the better moiety of their 
sovereignty.”—‘‘ Edinburgh Review,” vol. xix., p. 435. In point of 
fact, ‘‘ this better moiety” of the sovereignty has, since the Revolution of 
1688, become partly a dead letter, and has partly passed away from the 
Crown to the Prime Minister for the time being, and a Parliamentary 
majority. 


THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF INTOLERANCE. 61 


valent to a demand that war should break out anew, and that 
the whole work of the Peace negotiation should be gone over 
again from the very beginning. It was now far otherwise. 
The Papacy, since the Reformation, no longer stood at the 
head of the European commonwealth—was no longer the 
general acknowledged mediator of peace: the protector and 
interpreter of international law. The Papal rejection of 
the articles of Peace had, therefore, only this effect—it was 
to be regarded as a disapproval and a censure, taken from 
the ecclesiastical point of view. No prince has ever called 
into question the validity of the Peace of Westphalia by an 
appeal to the judgment of Rome, and theologians have 
always taught that a Papal Dispensation from its obligation 
would not be admissible.' 

It is certain that in Catholic countries compulsion was 
exercised to eject Protestantism, which had found its way 
into them, and to restore the unanimity of the Church; and 
Catholic princes willingly appealed to a right invented at 
the Reformation by the Protestants, in order thus to over- 
come it in their own territories, with a weapon offered to 
them by their adversaries, and which was declared by them 
to be legitimate. In order, however, that a just judgment 
should be formed upon this point, the following matters 
are to be taken into consideration : 

_ First, On the Catholic side they had to do with a theory 
and a practice whose founders and adherents had declared, 
at the celebrated Protestation of Spire, in the year 1529, 
that they would not tolerate the Catholic religion by the 
side of the new one; and they, in fact, had everywhere 
begun to destroy all traces of the old religion, and they 
likewise had devised a system which, by committing the 
ecclesiastical power to temporal princes, had degraded every 
religion, even that of Luther and Calvin, into a mere 
question of power, or the will and pleasure of the sovereign. 
Where the Catholic prince recognised above him and his 


1 Layman, ‘Theol. Moral,” lib. ii., tr. 8, c. 12. ‘Si Catholici 
cum acatholicis publicum foedus ineunt, non potest per auctoritatem 
Pontificiam solvi aut relaxari.” 


62 EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY OF SOVEREIGNS. 


people the firm and always equable authority of the Church, 
and desired to be only a member, a faithful and obedient 
member, of that great organism, the world-Church—there was 
(on the other side) the Protestant prince; and this prince, 
according to the supposition of his being invested with a su- 
preme religious judgeship in religious affairs, both for himself 
and his subordinates, knew of no authority higher than his own. 
So had they constructed in England ‘an Episcopal church, 
out of an unnatural combination of Catholic and Protestant 
elements—and this had so happened because the king had so 
willed it. Then there were Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, 
which became and remained Lutheran, because their kings 
regarded that doctrine as the most convenient, and also as 
the most favourable to the extension of their power. In 
Holland there reigned a pure Calvinism, because it was pro- 
fessed by the more numerous and powerful party, who, 
as soon as they felt themselves strong enough, violated the 
agreement they had made with the Catholics of the 
country,! and annihilated their religious freedom. In the 
German principalities no one could know whether the 
country the next year would be Lutheran, or Calvinist, or 
half-Calvinistic, according to the pattern that had been 
introduced into Brandenburg. It depended upon the person 
of the monarch and his varying views, or on the death of 
one and the succession of another of a different opinion. 
Secondly, The theory of the supreme episcopal authority 
of the Sovereign, and his obligation to allow no other reli- 
gion than his own, was distinctly a part of the Protestant 
system, and had become an article of faith. When a prince, 
hitherto Lutheran, suppressed Lutheranism in his territory, 
and forced Calvinism upon it, the Lutheran theologians na- 


1 Namely, the Union-Treaty of Utrecht, in the year 1579, and by 
which the still preponderating Catholic provinces and cities joined the 
League. Four years afterwards William of Orange issued a new edict, 
which, without the slightest pretext, broke the promise that had been 
given to the Catholics, and permitted only the exercise of the Calvinist 
religion. Compare on this point Sroupr, ‘‘ La Religion des Hollandais,” 
1672, p. 12 ; and “* Oeuvres,” D’ANT. ARNAULD, xiv. 509. 


THE CHURCH IN RELATION TO HERETICS. 63 


turally said, “ Your Calvinist conscience is in error;” but at 
the same time they were obliged to admit that, since the 
prince considered the Calvinist doctrine as the Biblical one, 
he was certainly entitled—nay, bound—to “reform” his coun- 
try in that direction. The Catholic Church found itself in 
quite a different position. Here, the two Powers were com- 
pletely separated; the prince and the authorities had not 
to be the rulers and bishops of the Church, but merely its 
protectors. The Church had already passed through various 
stages with respect to its position as regarded persons dif- 
fering from it in faith. Under the Christian Emperors it had 
been, taking it on the whole, the ruling or most favoured 
corporation in the Roman Empire; but the conduct of the 
Emperors towards those outside of the pale of the Church, 
towards heathens, Jews, heretics, and schismatics, was very 
unequal. Amongst the great variety of sects it was observed 
that, whilst some had an extremely immoral character, others 
were distinguished by the severity of their manners, so that 
general rules could not be applicable to both. On the whole, 
amongst the bishops of that time the prevailing view was, 
that a departure from the faith of the Church, if no other 
offence were conjoined with it, could not be severely punished 
by the State. “The mildness of the Church,” declares Pope 
Leo the Great, “contents itself with the sacerdotal judg- 
ment, and desires no blood-stained vengeance.” Therefore 
was the action of two Spanish bishops, who appeared before 
the Imperial tribunal as accusers of the Priscillianists, visited 
with the severest reprehension by the most illustrious men of 
the Church—by an Ambrose and a Martin. For a long pe- 
riod of time during the Middle Ages there was no separation 
from the Church on the ground of varying doctrines. In 
the eleventh century first began that gloomy, morally de- 
structive sect, with Gnostic doctrines, and which had come 
hither from the East, and in secret extended itself. Against 
the adherents of that sect the ruling authorities acted with 
great severity, and not one obdurate member of it was 
permitted to live. Gradually it became the rule that a fall- 
ing off from the faith, and the diffusion of un-ecclesiastical 


64 THE NEW DOCTRINE AND THE OLD CHURCH. 


doctrines, should be regarded as a crime worthy of death. 
’ The idea that by the side of the Church, by which the whole 
political and social life of the time was penetrated and sup- 
ported, there should also be other religious communities with 
a doctrine of their own, and that such might exist in the 
State, was a conception of a condition of circumstances such as 
no one at that time regarded as a possibility, and to which no 
one had ever given expression. Where sects did exist they 
retreated into the deepest obscurity, and the decrees of Popes 
and Councils, with respect to heresies, were naturally based 
upon the views generally prevailing at the time. But the 
regulations and commands therein contained do not fall within 
the domain of faith—of received and unchangeable doctrine; 
they appertain to discipline, which is changeable and capable 
of modification by peculiar and transitory circumstances. 
The insurrection of Protestantism against the Church 
assumed, in a very short space of time, the character of a 
conflict of life and death. Already in the writings of Luther, 
in the years 1520-1521, there was opened between the new 
doctrine and the old Church an abyss that could never more 
be bridged over. The rejection of all ecclesiastical tradition 
and of every Church authority—the setting up of a dogma 
concerning the relations of God to man, of which the 
originator confessed that it had remained unknown to 
the whole Church from the time of the Apostles to him- 
self. Such were the principles now undisguisedly brought 
forward and maintained. The demand was no longer merely 
this: “that the Church should reform itself thoroughly, in 
its head and in its limbs,” but that “it should be dissolved, 
and that the judgment of self-destruction should be executed 
by itself.” Its Primacy and Episcopacy were to be abolished; 
the organism which had kept nations together was to be rent 
asunder, and in the place of its worship, prayer, and Sacrifice, 
there were to be preachers appointed, and the Church must 
break with the entire past, in doctrine, in sacraments, and 
institutions. Upon a common understanding, upon a mere 
half-candid reunion, could only the person think who neither 


INTOLERANCE OF THE REFORMERS. 65 


comprehended the nature of the Protestant doctrine nor the 
bearing of the Reformation movement. 

For a long time there was no question as to mutual tolera- 
tion, or an attempt at a friendly communion together. Such 
a thought was utterly foreign to that entire age. On the 
Protestant side the theory of absolute ecclesiastical power 
being vested in the temporal sovereign, rendered a system of 
toleration an impossibility. Historically, nothing is more 
untrue than the assertion that “the Reformation was a move- 
ment for freedom of conscience.” The fact is that it was 
precisely the very opposite. Both Lutherans and Calvinists, 
as well as all men at all times, desired freedom of conscience; 
but then, to grant it to others when they were themselves the 
stronger party, was a thought that did not even occur to 
them. The Reformers all regarded the complete suppression 
and extirpation of the Catholic Church as a matter of course. 
From the very beginning they called upon princes and the 
political authorities to abolish by main force the worship of 
the Ancient Church. In England, Ireland, Scotland, Den- 
mark, and Sweden, they went so far as to affix the punish- 
ment of death to the practice of the Catholic religion. To- 
wards other sects, that arose about the same period, they 
proceeded with no less severity. That the Anabaptists should 
atone for their doctrine with their lives, was required even by 
him who was renowned as the mildest of the Reformers, Me- 
lancthon.!. The same man desired that corporal punishment 
should be inflicted on the Catholics, because it was the duty 
of the temporal power to proclaim and defend the Divine 
Law!? Calvin also besought of the Duke of Somerset, as 
the Regent-Protector of England, that he should destroy 
with the sword all—namely, the Catholics—who opposed the 
new Protestant Constitution of the Church.? Kings, states- 


1 See “ Corpus Ref.” Ed. Bretschneider, ii. 18, 711, 713. 

#  Corp.. Ral,” dxc:77. 

5 “ Hpistole Genev.,” 1579, p.40. It is remarkable that he also brought 
forward, as a ground why the punishment of death should be inflicted, 
that an attempt against the monarchy, appointed by God, was 
involved in the refusal to submit to its ecclesiastical authority. His 


F 


66 DEFENSIVE WAR OF THE CATHOLIC PRINCES, 


men, theologians, and philosophers were all agreed that 
neither the Catholics, nor any one of the sects who differed 
from the dominant Church, were entitled to claim toleration. 
To have two or several religions in a country, they said, was 
dangerous, and enfeebled the Government!’ Even the Lord 
Chancellor, Bacon, considered that the extreme limit of to- 
leration to which a Government could venture to go would 
be attained when it should content itself with a mere ex- 
ternal conformity to the established religion, and should make 
no attempt to penetrate into men’s consciences and secret 
convictions.? 

Thus, the Catholic princes, clergy, and people knew with 
perfect certainty that they themselves would be oppressed so 
soon as the party of the new religion felt itself strong enough 
to work out its will against them. They carried on a war of 
self-defence, when they endeavoured by all means to prevent 
the entrance of Protestantism into their territory, or to expel 
it if it. had already penetrated. All the Reformers and the 
theologians of the New Church expressed in their writings 
not the slightest doubt upon the principle—“ that the Ca- 
tholic religion must be exterminated wherever men had the 
power to do so.” In Germany, in the Scandinavian coun- 

tries, in England, in Switzerland—in short, everywhere that 
the Protestant religion predominated—its practice was soon 
found in correspondence with its theory. And as Reformers 
at the same time held firmly to the doctrine that princes and 
the civil authorities were the possessors of supreme religious 
authority, it was resolved, by the Coryphezi of the reformed 
faith, that they should refuse to princes, who did not conform 


friend Beza even urged that anti-Trinitarians should also be put to death, 
and this, too, even though they recanted !—‘* Crenii Animadversiones,” 
xi. 90. 

1 As, for example, Lord Burghley, minister of Queen Elizabeth. His 
fixed principle was that the State could never be secure in which two 
religions were tolerated, for there was no stronger feeling of animosity 
than that on account of religion —See ‘‘ Life of Lord Burghley,” in 
Pecx’s “ Desiderata Curiosa,” p. 33. 

2** Certain Observations made upon a Libel, 1592,’—Works; 
London, 1846, i. 382. 


THE MAXIM OF THE REFORMERS. 67 


to Calvinistic principles, the right to govern, and declare 
their deposition as permissible and necessary. It is well 
known how far Knox and others went in this way, and what 
share such men had in the dethronement of Charles I. of 
England. In Sweden, Sigismund was despoiled of his crown 
because he was a Catholic. 

Bayle supposes that the Reformers and their followers must 
have felt themselves in a very embarrassing position, because 
they had always, when opposed to the old Church, insisted 
upon “freedom of conscience,” and declared that the com- 
pulsion exercised towards them was criminal; whilst they 
themselves, nevertheless, exhorted the authorities to suppress 
every other doctrine and religious community. Such a cir- 
cumstance, however, took place so universally, and it was so 
much in accordance with the spirit of the times, that it was 
not felt to be self-contradictory.!. The French Protestants, 
although they formed but a poor minority, and only found 
protection from the Edict of Nantes, yet refused, in the 
places of security that had been granted to them, to allow 
any Catholic, or the practice of the Catholic religion, to be 
where they were. The same scene was enacted in all parts 
of Protestantised Europe. The prevailing maxim was: 
“ Freedom for ourselves, and oppression for every other 
party!” 

The first who were in earnest about religious freedom, and 
who really placed the two religions on an equality, were the 
Catholic Englishmen who, towards the middle of the 
seventeenth century, founded the colony of Maryland, under 
the leadership of Lord Baltimore. That little State, under 
a Catholic administration for a few years, was in the enjoy- 
ment of perfect tranquillity and the most complete freedom. 
But barely two decades had been completed, when the more 
numerous Protestants, protected by the government of 
the mother country, overthrew the existing regulations, 


1 We need only see how the well-known Marnix de Saint-Aldegonde 
defends himself in his ‘‘ Réponse Apologétique,” 1598, against the 
reproach made to him in the piece entitled ‘t Antidote ou pga tery 
contre les Conseils Sanguinaires, de M. S. A.” 


¥F2 


68 THE PRINCIPLE OF TOLERATION. 


brought in the Church of England as the established religion, 
and passed severe penal laws against the practice of the 
Catholic faith.1 

For a long time, the Netherlands had the reputation of 
being the only country in Europe where freedom of faith, 
although very limited, existed. Here Calvinism was the 
State Church, but a very considerable part of the population 
remained Catholic; and there were, besides, Arminians, 
Lutherans, Mennonites, and other sects from foreign 
countries. These the States-General allowed to live in 
peace, so that many settled down in Holland on account of 
this freedom. The Catholics alone lay under severe oppres- 
sions.” Since the middle of the seventeenth century, various 
isolated Protestant voices had been raised in favour of the 
concession of religious freedom. ‘The first of these was the 
Dutchman, Koornheert, a predecessor of the Arminians; 
but he stood quite alone in his views concerning toleration. 
After the middle, and towards the close of the seventeenth 
century, some defenders of the principle of toleration came 
forward: Milton, Richard Baxter, Bayle, Locke. But 
Locke alone discussed the question thoroughly and candidly, 
without falling into glaring contradictions, or taking refuge 


1 The facts are given in detail in Macmanon’s “ Historical View of the 
Government of Maryland,” Baltimore, 1831, pp. 198-250; and in 
Bancrort’s ‘History of the United States.” Boston, 1834. It is 
interesting to have the opinion of a living Protestant theologian, Thomas 
Coit, of Newrochelle, on this point. He says—(in his work, ‘‘ Puritanism, 
or a Churchman’s Defence ;” New York, 1855)—‘‘ In Maryland, as the 
Roman Catholics claim, the rights of conscience were /irst fully acknow- 
ledged in this country. This is a fact I never knew disputed by good 
authority, and though a Protestant with all my heart, I accord them the 
full praise of it with the frankest sincerity,” &c. 

2 This is noticed by Sir William Temple, in 1670, in his ‘“‘ Observations 
upon the United Provinces.”—Worxs; London, 1720, i. 58. The 
preacher Brun, in his treatise—(‘‘ La Veritable Réligion des Hollandois ;” 
Amsterd. 1675, p. 171)—adduces, as a proof of the commendable piety of 
the Netherlands Government, that they had not only taken from the 
Catholics their churches, schools, and institutions, as well as excluding 
them from any office, but also continually interfered with and disturbed 
them in their religious worship! &c., &c. 


PERSECUTION IN ENGLAND. 69 


in prevarication. The others required, in accordance with 
the precedent given by the Netherlands, that all Protestant 
parties and sects should reciprocally afford to each other 
liberty ; but the Catholic Church, as their common antago- 
nist, was still to be oppressed and persecuted. As grounds 
for thus dealing with Catholics, they stated, first, that the 
Catholics alone acknowledged an Ecclesiastical head in a 
foreign country ; and next, that the Catholics would, if their 
side ever became again the stronger, oppress the Protestants.’ 
Subsequent experience has, indeed, proved that this Protes- 
tant possibility has long since been worked out by them into 
an actual reality ; because, for two hundred years after the 
rise of Protestantism, no religious freedom was granted to 
Catholics, in any country or district where Protestants had 
gained the upper hand. In some towns and villages of 
Germany alone, there was a prescriptive parity in pursuance 
of the provisions of the Peace of Westphalia. 

How deeply-seated was the principle of religious persecution 
in the very blood of the professors of the new doctrine, is 
shown in a striking manner by the conduct of the Anglo- 
Saxon race. In England, after the Restoration, executions 
were no longer numerous, and these fell only upon Catholic 
clergymen; but the prisons there did the work of the execu- 
tioner—for they were so unhealthy, that human beings died 
in them by thousands. The Quaker, William Penn, reckoned 
that, in a short space of time, about 5000, who had been 
incarcerated on account of their religion, had perished in 
the English jails.2 This was also the fate of numerous 
Protestant Dissenters, as well as of Catholies—and especially 
so of the new sects of Baptists and Quakers. 

Puritans and Presbyterians were, by turns, oppressors and 
oppressed; but they were also theoretically convinced that it 
was a matter of conscience to tolerate no other religion than 


1 Baye, “ Oeuvres,” ii. 412. 

2 Mackintosh, “ History of the English Revolution,” pp. 158-160. Ac- 
cording to the calculation of this historical investigator, there were in 
England, from 1660 to 1685, about 25,000 persons imprisoned on account 
of their religion, and 15,000 families utterly ruined. 


70 LAWS AGAINST HERESY IN AMERICA AND SWEDEN. 


their own, the moment that they should possess the means of 
exercising compulsion. So soon as the very men who had 
escaped from persecution in the mother country founded 
new States on the soil of North America, they devised a body 
of laws unequalled for their severity and intolerance.’ 
Catholic priests were put to death, if they were but seen in 
the country; Quakers were hanged; the mildest punish- 
ments of the new Code, for them and other heterodox 
persons, were branding, banishment, and piercing through 
the tongue with a red-hot iron. In that land which, since 
the Declaration of Independence, in the year 1776, has 
carried out to its widest extent a separation between the 
Church and the State, there was, in the seventeenth century, 
a theocracy established that so mingled together religion and 
civil life as to destroy all freedom; and, for the like of 
which, a second example is not to be found in history. The 
state of things in Lutheran Sweden, came the nearest to 
that of the Calvinists in America. There it was a law of 
the State, that whoever remained a year under the ban of 
the Church should be expelled from the kingdom; that a 
person under excommunication should be excluded from all 
social intercourse; and further, it was ordained that whoso- 
ever, in theological matters, should use even an objectionable 
mode of speech, and would not recant it, should be dispos- 
sessed, and transported out of the country.2. As a matter of 
course, in such a state of affairs, and with such a restrictive 
system of laws, a theological literature, and scientific culture 
of the sacerdotal order in Sweden, must come to naught. 
Mackintosh has strikingly remarked what an incalculable 
amount of despotic power Protestantism placed in the 
hands of princes, for, by committing to them the chief 
authority over religion, it armed them with powers whose 


1 The so-styled “‘ Blue Laws” of New England. Dr. Spalding, Bishop 
of Louisville, in North America, has given an elaborate analysis of them 
in his “ Miscellanea: comprising Reviews, Lectures, and Essays.” Louis- 
ville, 1855, pp. 355-380. 


* “ Kirchengesetz und Ordnung Karls XI.” Stockholm, 1687, pp. 
7-33. 


DESPOTIC POWER OF PROTESTANT PRINCES. 71 


exercise was not restrained either by law or custom, of 
regulated by experience, and whose limits were undefined.! 
This notion, however, became so intertwined with Protestant 
views, that theologians, when they were urging persons to 
conformity with the Church of the country, and writing 
against Separatists, made loyalty towards the sovereign, and 
veneration for the law and authorities, their most weighty 
arguments. It is thus Archbishop Tillotson expatiates on 
this theme: “That whosoever cannot, like the Apostles, 
show a directly Divine mission, is committing an offence 
against authority and the law, by proclaiming any other 
doctrine than that approved of by them.”? 

Even in a Catholic country, in France, the theory that the 
religion of the king should be also that of all good subjects, 
had, in the seventeenth century, met with general accept- 
ance. ‘To it especially is to be attributed the revocation of 
the Edict of Nantes, by Louis XIV., and the attempt to 
change Protestants into Catholics, by all means, gentle and 
coercive, allowable and unallowable. It is a fact that the 
Intendants and Magistrates were accustomed to bring 
forward, as a decisive argument to Protestants, that it was 
“the command of the King;” and the reproach which 
Bayle makes to the Catholic clergy is, that they suffered this 
to be done, and did not loudly protest against it, although 
such a proceeding was contrary to the Catholic religion. 
The reproach was not unjust ;* and the French clergy had, 
one hundred years afterwards, to wipe away, in streams of 


1 “ History of the Revolution.” Ed. Paris, i. 230. ‘‘ The execution 
of the prerogative, of which neither law nor experience had defined the 
limits.” 

? See his treatise or discourse, “‘The Protestant Religion Vindicated 
from Novelty.”"—Works, London, 1751, ii. 247. In later times has 
DavBeny (‘‘ Appendix to the Guide to the Church,” ii. 434) put in a 
very prominent light a separation from the National Church as a crime 
of disobedience against the highest authority in the State. Every one 
acquainted with the state of affairs in England is aware that the same 
motive has still a considerable influence with certain classes of the 
population. 

? “* Oeuvres,” ii. 348. 


72 THE EVIL AND ITS REMEDY. 


their best blood, this fault of their predecessors. The same 
Bayle remarks that “the Royal Edicts which suppressed 
Protestantism were referred to in books and _ pastoral 
writings, as if they had been ‘Sacraments.’”! A precedent 
Protestant author, Brueys, endeavours, in a work of his, upon 
the obedience which Christians owe to the temporal power, 
to show that the Protestants were bound in conscience to 
obey the Royal Edicts which forbade their assembling for 
Divine worship! Instead of an Ecclesiastical repudiation 
of his work, it obtained praise and commendation! ? 

From the excess of the evil—out of the paroxysm of the 
malady—there arose gradually the recovery. It required a 
long time. Several circumstances concurred together to 
bring ultimately about a more endurable state of things. 
There was, in the first place, the internal languor of the 
Protestant State Church—namely, of the most powerful of 
them all, the English, which was severely damaged by the 
consequences of its own victory—the Revolution of 1688. 
With the eighteenth century had appeared such a wide and 
deeply-penetrating decay of religion, and such a temper of 

1“ Oeuvres,” ii. 33. 

2 Ina note appended to the Introduction in this book, theauthor remarks, 
with reference to the persecution of the French Protestants by Louis 
XIV., that in writing the above paragraph he would have wished to have 
called attention to the fact that ‘‘ Pope Innocent was greatly displeased 
at the oppression of the Protestants in France, and took steps to have 
them treated with more lenity.” The author, however, adds, he could 
not at the moment discover the authorities upon which this statement 
rested ; but whilst his work was passing through the press he had dis- 
covered, and therefore cites them. They are Mazures, ‘ Histoire de la 
Révolution de 1688,” Paris, 1825, ii. 126; and MaCAvuLay’s well- 
known work (Tauchnitz Edit., ii. 250). The author adds: “It is 
notorious that the relations between the Pope (Innocent) and the King 
(Louis XIV.) were not merely unsatisfactory, but actually hostile, and 
the Pope was therefore under the necessity of seeking to attain his object 
not by a direct appeal to the French King, but through another channel. 
He therefore commissioned his Nuncio, D’Adda, in London, to pray of 
King James II. of England that he might intercede with Louis XIV. in 
favour of the persecuted Protestants. James declined complying with 
this request, although he himself did a good deal for an alleviation of 
their sufferings.” 


CESARO-PAPISM. 73 


indifferentism had become dominant, that in the upper classes 
there was not so much of that kind of zeal which is necessary 
for the persecution of people for a different opinion. Indif- 
ferentism had gone so far, that strangers, like Montesquieu, 
received in England the impression that there existed no 
religion any more; and serious men, like Gibson and Butler, 
expressed their anxiety lest the whole nation should fall into 
demoralization and infidelity.! The sects of dissenters were 
left to act as they pleased, because their doings were regarded 
as mere folly, or harmless fanaticism; and as to the Catholics 
in England, they had shrivelled up into a small, quiescent, 
scarcely perceptible group; and persons were ashamed to 
put in motion the heavy hammer of the Penal Laws for the 
purpose of crushing a feeble and scarcely visible antagonist. 
The state of affairs in Ireland was, however, far different. 
There the interests of the Protestant party still required that 
the majority of the nation should be kept in a state of 
Helotism. But in England, to the feeling of indifferentism, 
which allowed things to go on as they might, was added 
that disposition in favour of right and freedom peculiar to 
the Anglo-Saxon race; and which served to arouse still more 
and more an inclination towards religious toleration 
Germany, during the seventeenth, and at the beginning of 
the eighteenth, adhered constantly to the track of the six- 
teenth century. The yoke of the ecclesiastical princes’ 
dominion —“ the Cesaro-Papism,” as people called it— 
weighed with undiminished and suffocating force upon the 
Protestant Church system. Almost every well-disposed man 
complained of it; and, forgetful that it was the fathers and 
reformers of the New Church who had put this bandage 
upon their child in its cradle, at its birth, they said, with 
Valentin Andrea, “that Satan had been the inventor of 
Cesaro-Papism.”? Executions, too, on account of religion, 
still continued.2 The reaction against Pietism led to new 


1“ Quarterly Review,” vol. cii. p. 463. 

? Anton Boume’s “ Schriften,” ii. 986. 

* In Sweden, Banier of Stargard was executed, because he did not 
think as a true Lutheran concerning the doctrine of ‘‘ Justification.” At . 


74 RATIONALISM IN GERMANY. 


and endless religious oppressions and vexations. No one was 
allowed to meet with others for religious purposes.! There 
was soon added to this the hostility of the authorities 
against the disciples of Zinzendorf. It was forbidden, under 
pain of banishment, to circulate the books of the Moravians.? 
In the Prussian States Lutherans were taken to task, and 
the Government prohibited religious practices that were 
distasteful to the Calvinists. People were so accustomed to 
religious despotism, and to the interference of the authorities 
in private life, under religious pretexts, that persons of the 
world, in their writings, urged the authorities to bring before 
the tribunals and severely punish expressions used in 
social intercourse which did not sound as being quite ortho- 
dox! 

In the meantime—by the middle of the last century— 
Germany had become thoroughly weary of the theology of 
the sixteenth century. The dogmatic system of the Con- 
cordian-Book and the Heidelberg Catechism, with their 
internal contradictions and their social-political consequences, 
lay like a mountain upon the German mind. The two chief 
supports of the old Protestant system—the authority of the 
University Professors and the Church Government of Princes 
—were worn out and decayed. The Professors became 
Rationalists; and, on the throne of the principal Protestant 
State, there sat a Supreme Bishop of the Church of his 
country, who, as he said, “never lived under the one roof 


Konigsberg, John Adelgreiff was, in 1636, beheaded and burned. At 
Lubech, Gunther was beheaded on account of his Socinian views in 
1687, on the recommendation of the Jurist faculty of Kiel, and of the 
theological faculty of Wittenberg —Arno.ps, ‘“ Kirchenhist.,” ii. 643. 

1 John James Moser reports in his Biography, p. 191, that in Auspach- 
isch, for a few persons singing a hymn together in their own homes they 
were thrust into the tower! Whole volumes are filled with Penal edicts 
against Pietists and Conventicles. 

2 MevsEts, “ Hist. Lit. Magazin,” 1790, ii. 26. 

’ This is required, for example, by Bernard von Rohr, in his introduc- 
tion to ‘‘ Staats-klugheit,” (Leipsic, 1718, p. 292,) with respect to the 
then often-repeated expression, ‘‘ that a way to salvation was to be found 
in all religions.” 


REACTION IN GERMANY AND FRANCE, 75 


with religion,” and whose favourite occupation it was to mock 
the clergy, who, in his eyes, were only a heap of blockheads, 
sluggards, and profitless bread-consumers!! With wonderful 
rapidity a flood of rationalism and infidelity, under the mask 
of theology, poured over Germany; and everywhere theo- 
logians and preachers were the first to yield to it. Frederick 
the Second’s expression—“ That in his States everyone might 
become blessed (work out his salvation) after his own fashion” 
—portrayed the revolution that had taken place. By the 
want of faith in the princes and theologians (a sentiment 
which soon communicated itself to the upper classes in 
Germany), persons showed themselves well content with the 
temporal and police-like treatment of ecclesiastical affairs ; 
but it also indisposed them to the application of compulsory 
measures, upon religious grounds. The liberty of taking 
part in, or withdrawing from, a particular form of worship, 
was generally desired and conceded. This led further; it 
appeared to be natural and reasonable that confessional 
restrictions and the civil inequalities of various religions 
should be done away with. Then, the separation hitherto 
existing between Lutherans and Calvinists had also lost 
much of its significance since the diffusion of the Rational- 
istic mode of thinking. The old opposition between the 
Catholic Church and that of the Protestants remained, 
however, as strongly marked as before. Denmark, which, in 
respect to religion, was accustomed to follow the German 
current, did, however, in the years 1777 and 1779, issue 
ordinances by which the regular (Catholic) clergy were 
prohibited, upon pain of death, from entering the country.” 

In France, the violent and hateful proceedings against 
Protestants, and the consequences of these proceedings—the 
emigration of so many thousands, which had inflicted a deep 
wound upon the prosperity of the country—had also aroused 
a strong and long-continued reaction. The emigrants, 
amongst whom were many men of scientific attainments, 

1“ Fur die protestantische Kirche und deren Geistlichkeit, ein 


Journal,” 1810, ii. 84. 
? REUTER’s “‘ Theolog. Repertorium,” 702, vol. Ixx. p. 168, 


76 PREVALENCE OF MORE LIBERAL IDEAS, 


got hold of a great part of the foreign press, and filled all 
Europe with their complaints. The “ dragonnades” and the 
persecuting tyranny of the French Government passed into a 
proverb. People began in France to feel ashamed and 
humbled before foreigners. The “ halo” of the monarchy, 
which had made every measure of Louis XIV. appear in a 
favourable light to Frenchmen, had been extinguished by 
the Regency, and the despicable government of Louis XV. 
The story of Calas afforded an occasion for popular, warm, 
and eloquently-written treatises concerning “ the advantage 
and rationality of religious freedom ;” and then the deistical 
and indifferentist mode of thought, which had got possession 
of the upper classes, did the rest. Every turn in the views 
and disposition of the French people is accustomed to exer- 
' cise a decisive influence upon the mode of thought and 
condition of all Europe. At that time it was considered in 
France, as elsewhere, that persecution and restraint only 
made hypocrites; that the fact of suffering for the faith, 
and being able to show martyrs, exalted the self-complacency 
and the confidence, as well as the authority, of a religious com- 
munity. It was felt and said that a Church which called for 
the arm of temporal power to sustain it, and that closed the 
mouth of its antagonists by compulsion and punishments, 
did, by so acting, make out a certificate of its own spiritual 
impotency. In all Europe the idea became more and more 
prevalent that Churches only needed spiritual weapons for 
their protection; and that it was the duty of the temporal 
power to refrain from all constraint in matters of religion. 
The old legislation, which rested on the opposite principle, 
existed certainly for a long time—indeed, it still exists, parti- 
cularly in Sweden and Spain; but the aversion to put its 
enactments into execution, with all their exclusive severity, 
has, for a long time, restrained the temporal power, and has 
made an alteration in the still existing Penal Laws appear, 
even to the Governments themselves, desirable. Catholic 
Bishops also endeavoured now to show that the principle of 
persecuting and oppressing persons of a different opinion had 
never been a dogma of the Church; and if Catholics in former 


THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND PUBLIC OPINION. 77 


times practised persecution, their so doing was not to be 
regarded as a consequence of a Church dogma.! 

The Catholic Church could, in fact, always, without diffi- 
culty and without scruple, enter into the new direction of 
the times, and contribute to the sustainment of public 
opinion, now becoming continually stronger and more 
unanimous in disapproving of constraint being employed in 
matters of religion. It had never put forward the assertion 
‘that sovereigns were to be rulers over the religion of their 
people.” Its whole doctrine of the princely power, and of the 
relations between governments and their subjects, was limited 
to the Apostolic demand of “obedience in things lawful.” 
It had always left the most ample room for the most 
manifold political combinations. It had, remembering what 
were its own boundaries, never undertaken to decide what 
should be the amount or the form of political authority, and 
how much should be left to the mass of the people, or 
how much to the ruler and his organs—it has never de- 
termined what things should be reserved as matters for 
the administrative, and what, on the contrary, should be left 
to the decision of the people, nor what should be dependent 
upon the consent of the Estates: all these were subjects 
that did not concern the Church. Freedom of movement in 
its own spiritual sphere is what it had always demanded. 
Thus there could not only exist in its bosom states with the 
most various institutions, as regarded their religious rela- 
tions, but monarchs also could, without experiencing the 
disapproval of the Church, make the strongest concessions to 
persons of another belief in their dominions, as the French 
King had already done by the Edict of Nantes, and that, too, 
without any contradiction on the part of the French Episco- 
pacy and the Papal See. On the part of the Church, it was 
considered to be reasonable and right that King James II. 
of England, although a Catholic, should bind himself to 
maintain the freedom and the possessions of the Anglican 


1 So speaks Bishop SpaLprne in the “ Introductory Address” to his 
‘* Miscellanea,” p. xxx. 


78 POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 


Church, and to urge on Parliament a general freedom of 
religion. He, indeed, did not keep his promise, and thereby 
brought about his own downfall. It was then to be generally 
expected that the Church, in its altered situation, and in the 
revolution that had taken place in the views of nations, 
should occupy a position where it might show, as it had 
already done, with what tranquillity it could bear inde- 
pendent and fully-developed religious communities to exist 
by its side, whether with equal or with lesser rights. 

At present there reigns in all Europe the most decided 
dislike to make use of religion as a political instrument, and 
just as generally and decidedly do men protest against com- 
pulsion in religious affairs by the State or the police. As 
often as, in any part of Europe (with the exception of Russia, 
which is herein regarded as privileged), any act of religious 
restraint takes place, there arises a general sensation—an 
agitation and a demonstration in the opposite direction—and 
that, too, is almost always so well-managed, and so perse- 
veringly carried out, that it finally gains its point. : 

And yet there is another side to this question. Let us 
especially consider the position of a State, and a popular 
Church still. in the possession of the entire nation—that 
unity still exists in the country, and that this unity and 
this religious peace can only be disturbed through the 
diffusion of a new doctrine by intruders from abroad. If we 
place ourselves in that which is the general Christian point 
of view (and abstractedly from the differences prevailing 
among Christians), we may certainly say “that the religion 
and morality of a people are, in every state, inseparably 
connected with one another, and that an attack upon the 
one inevitably involves an injury to the other. It is, then, 
the business of a government to provide for the public weal 
—for the maintenance of those principles and views by which 
general morality is sustained, and to prevent all threatened 
violations of it.”!_ From this follows the duty also of pro- 
tecting the religion of the country. It might here be 


‘Compare the opinion of Bossuet with Mazure, “ Histoire de la 
Révolution de 1688.” Paris, 1825, iii. 386. 


THE DUTY OF PROTECTING THE CHURCH. 79 


objected that the Christian Church is strong enough, or 
ought to be strong enough, to protect itself and overcome 
attacks from heresy or infidelity; but, as a matter of fact, it 
is not strong enough to do so. It is not so, in the first place, 
because the attack allies itself with the passions and 
strongest inclinations of the natural man, and also finds a 
fellow-combatant in the breast of every individual aban- 
doned to his own impulses, and who is thus arrayed against 
a religion felt to be burdensome, and requiring so many 
difficult things for him to do. In the second place, religion 
is not equal to the struggle, for this reason—that is, when its 
opponents are completely unrestrained, because Christianity 
is one connected whole of doctrines, precepts, counsels, and 
historical facts, in which each is supported and responsible for 
the other. There are, however, very few who are competent, 
at one commanding view, to take into contemplation this 
connexion, and still fewer, perhaps, who are abie to keep 
it clearly and constantly present before their mind. Its an- 
tagonists direct their attacks always upon isolated points, taken 
away from their connexion with the whole; and so the 
attack seems to be stronger and more plausible than the 
defence. On this account the weight of the power of the 
State must be thrown into the scale in favour of the assailed 
religion. 

Furthermore, no advocate for the freedom of attack on 
existing religion has ever yet succeeded in determining exactly 
the limits within which that freedom is to be permissible. 
Logically has this freedom never yet been carried out in the 
world—not even in England, nor in North America. On the 
other hand, it-may indeed be replied that the defenders of 
protection to be afforded by the State to religion, and for 
compulsion—for, without such, protection cannot be made 
effective—are, on their side, not in a position to point out 
any rational limits, up to which the repression of new 
doctrines and the defence of the State Church may proceed. 
In times of religious excitement such a repression, if severely 
and thoroughly carried into execution, becomes an awful 
tyranny, which revolts all minds against it; and the reaction 


80 PRESENT STATE OF THE CHURCHES. 


from which is far more destructive to the Church than a 
state of defencelessness would have been. 

This, then, at the end, is the only thing to be said: That, 
since the great divisions of the sixteenth century, a condition 
of circumstances has come to pass in the cultivated states of 
Europe, and the intercourse and the intermingling of nations, 
(with the facility of communication,) have so increased, and 
the reciprocal influence of populations has become so incal- 
culable, and public opinion exercises such an irresistible 
power, that Governments, in their own interests, as well 
as in that of the various churches, find themselves placed 
under the necessity of refraining, so far as it is possible, 
from any interference with religious entanglements, and 
of preserving for the members of various religious creeds, 
so long as they really can be called Christian, equal duties 
and also equal civil rights. And then these Governments, 
looking tranquilly on at the spiritual struggle of the 
Churches, must still be careful to provide for the preserva- 
tion of the public law, of civil order, and the perfect freedom 
of all. For one hundred years past the whole course of 
development in Europe has led to this—and we may see in 
it the hand of Divine Providence—that Protestants and 
Catholics have been approaching each other more and more 
—have been brought into closer, more frequent, and more 
intimate civil relations with one another—and have been 
placed under the necessity of a common action and a 
common understanding. The old confessional bulwarks 
and walls of separation have fallen down more and more, and 
become untenable. We can no longer withdraw from one 
another—we can no longer retire back to the old distance 
and separation, however troublesome and painful the conse- 
quences of the present state of things may be. And many 
problems and puzzles which have sprung from this inter- 
mingling, however insoluble they now appear to us, may yet 
with time find a solution; or, at least, it is to be hoped they 
will. Our posterity will one day perceive that this inter- 
twining and mingling has yet had preponderating beneficial 
consequences ; that it— 


\ 


A CHRISTIAN STATE. 81 


‘“‘ Like the toad, ugly and venomous, 
Wears yet a precious jewel in its head,” 

At the same time, however, the State can and must (if it 
will not abandon its cause altogether and yield itself, as cap- 
tured, to the destructive forces and tendencies of the age) pre- 
serve and defend its character asa Christian State. It may not 
put off and give up what is common to all Christian Churches, 
because it must, in the existing equality of creeds, do so 
with what is peculiar as to individual religious church com- 
munities, and does not afford to their doctrines or institutions 
a governmental guarantee. The Christian social elements and 
principles are those by which marriage, the family, childhood, 
the foundations of civil order, are fortified and consecrated ; 
the social virtues of neighbourly love, industry, chastity, and 
moderation have become Christian duties; and with them is 
bound up the relation between the civil power and its subjects. 
These are all built upon one sanctified basis. This whole Chris- 
tian social order, and its sureties in doctrine and in life, must be 
maintained at all cost, by every State which desires to con- 
tinue in existence. And every State, too, must be prepared 
with a negation if there is required from it, as is now fre- 
quently done, by an appeal to “ the freedom of science,” to 
yield up such things to the assaults of “the scientific,” and 
of their destructive doctrines, whether couched under the 
name of a “materialist theory of nature,” or of a “critical, 
analytical treatment of history.” The State must be pre- 
pared to refuse permission to do mischief —it must act 
precisely as if one were to say of a tree, that it might still 
hope to bloom, if permission were once given to destroy its 
roots through which hitherto it had imbibed sap, and strength, 
and life. 


THE CHURCH AND CIVIL FREEDOM. 


A FEW years ago, the “ Privy Councillor of Justice,” Pro- 
fessor Stahl of Berlin, in some printed lectures of his,’ made 
a sharp attack upon the social and political character, as well 
as influence of the Catholic Church. With respect to what 
he says on the point of religious toleration, I shall not sub- 
ject it to any further examination. The description which 
I have already given of the historical development of this 
question will, when compared with that of Herr Stahl, be 
sufficient for forming a judgment upon it. Herr Stahl, 
however, goes much further. According to his theory, Pro- 
testantism gives, by its “justification from faith, a higher 
degree of inward (moral) freedom to-man, and carries him 
forward thereby (‘to a certain extent,” he cautiously adds) 
“also to a degree of external (political) freedom.” According 
to this, he assumes that the States which have become Pro- 
testant have attained, by their change of religion, to greater 
freedom than the Catholic. I cannot refrain from a brief 
historical examination of this assertion. 

Stahl points out the chief doctrine, from which he deduces 


1“Der Protestantismus als politisches Princip.” Berlin, 1853. I 
confess that I had not paid any particular attention to thiswork. I only 
lately read it, when I wished to write upon the subject. I have perused 
it with astonishment. I really had no idea that one in the position of the 
author could possibly have indulged in such notions and treatment of 
history. 





LUTHERANISM AND POLITICAL FREEDOM. 83 


such great political blessings, more precisely as the doctrine 
of imputed righteousness; and he is quite correct when he, 
in this “article of the standing and falling Church,” as well 
as the same in the Concordian-Formulas, and of the whole 
old Protestant theology, recognises the dogma in which the 
contrast between the Catholic Church and Protestantism, in 
its old form, is most sharply marked out. I must, however, 
remark, that he with this, his favourite doctrine, as the 
mother of political freedom, stands somewhat isolated. All, 
or almost all, learned theologians of his own faith in Germany, 
as well as elsewhere, have renounced it. Exegetists acknow- 
ledge that it is foreign to the New Testament, and that 
Luther had only introduced it into one of the Epistles of St. 
Paul by a false translation; and dogmatic theologians have 
repudiated the attempt to establish it on speculative or 
biblical grounds. I, for myself, undertake to point out to 
him for every single one who adopts it, fifteen who have 
given it up as untenable.! 

Let us now see how it stands with the greater measure of 
political freedom which the “ imputation” doctrine is said to 
have brought to the people. We will begin with the Scan- 
dinavian States, as those in which Lutheranism has developed 
itself most purely, without any foreign interference, and has 
been able to unfold its social and political consequences 
without any obstacle. 

The Englishman, Lord Molesworth, who made _ himself 
thoroughly acquainted with the Protestant North, remarks 
in the year 1692, “In the Roman Catholic religion, with the 
head of the Church in Rome, is a principle of resistance 


1 Stahl refers to p. 98 of Baxter’s ascetic writings, which he far prefers 
to the ‘‘ Exercises of St. Ignatius.” He appears not to know that this 
certainly distinguished theologian made it the peculiar task of his whole 
life to contend against the Protestant doctrine of ‘ Justification,” 
and especially the ‘‘imputation” dogma, as an un-Biblical and soul- 
destructive error; and this, too, as well in his practical-ascetic as in his 
dogmatic writings. For forty long years did Baxter oppose this doctrine 
which Herr Stahl regards as the innermost mystery of the Christian 
religion. Baxter pursued it in all its windings, and hunted it out of 
every corner in which it sought refuge. 


G2 


84 THE SCANDINAVIAN STATES, 


against unlimited civil power; but in the North, the Lutheran 
Church is entirely subject and subservient to the civil power, 
and the whole northern population of Protestant countries 
have lost their freedom since they exchanged their religion 
for a better.” The cause for this he seeks in the absolute 
and sole dependence of the clergy upon the monarch. “ The 
Lutheran clergy,” he says, “ protect their political power in 
a chamber of their own at the Diet, although at the same 
time they are dependent on the Crown, as their temporal 
and spiritual head.” 

In Denmark the Lutheran doctrine obtained as complete 
a victory as possibly could be desired. Its influence and 
its strength are neither disturbed nor lamed by the existence 
of sects, nor by any remnants of the old religion. Denmark 
and Sweden are still purely Lutheran countries. The social 
and political consequences of the victory over the Catholic 
~ Church in Denmark are described by Barthold in a very 
few words:? “ A dog-like servitude weighs down again upon 
the Danish peasant; and the citizens, deprived of all repre- 
sentative power, groan under oppressive burdens, and the 
quartering of soldiers upon them. The North has become 
Intheran, but the King and the nobility share the dominion 
between them, and even the children of preachers and 
sacristans continue to be serfs.” 

The nobility at once made use of the Reformation to 
appropriate to themselves not only the greatest part of the 
Church property, but also that belonging to the free peasants. 
At the same moment (in 1569) by the increased severity of 
the Religious Article, the non-reception of which was punish- 
able with death, they drove strangers out of the country.® 
From 1536 to 1660 the nobility had become rich and power- 


1“ Account of Denmark,” p. 236. 

2 *« Geschichte von Riigen und Pommern,” iv. 2, 294. 

* This and the following facts are taken from ALLEN’s “ History of 
the Kingdom of Denmark,” translated into German by Falck, 1846, 
pp. 287, 296, 304, 8309. The Copenhagen Society assigned to this book 
a prize, as the best work of its kind published. See ‘‘ Berliner Polit. 
Wochenblatt,” 1832, p. 224. 


OPPRESSION OF THE PEASANT CLASS. 85 


ful by the oppression of the other orders, and the monopoly 
of all state privileges in their own hands. To the wants of 
the State they contributed nothing. The oppressive taxes 
had to be borne by the poorer classes. “The impoverish- 
ment and degradation of the peasant class, in consequence of 
the strong and stern rule of the nobility, operated most 
disadvantageously for the State.” “The dwellers upon the 
great estates of the Church were now obliged,” says Allen, 
“to exchange the mild rule of the clergy for the oppressive 
yoke of the nobility. Forced labours were arbitrarily multi- 
plied, and the peasantry were treated as thralls.”! “ Agri- 
culture sank to a much lower degree than it had been in the 
Middle Ages; the population declined, and the country was 
overspread with untenanted farms.” Through new nobility 
privileges, by the cruelty of the Game Laws,’ introduced 
directly after the Reformation, and by forced compacts, was 
the servitude, the spoliation, and the degradation of the 
once free peasant class completed. Not only were the 
peasantry, but also the citizens and the clergy—in short, the 
whole nation was trampled under foot by a nobility comprising 
from eight to nine hundred individuals.* Christian IV. 
(1588-1648) made an attempt to procure some alleviation 
of this oppression; but his attempt was frustrated by the 
resistance of the nobility, whose power proved to be greater 
than that of the monarch. The slavery of the peasantry 
continued. King and citizens were in reality the bondmen 
of the nobles. 

By the Revolution of 1660, the power of the nobility was 
broken; but then, on the other hand, King Frederick III. 
and his successors were declared to be absolute monarchs. 
The Royal Law of 1665 decreed that the King of Denmark 
was bound to take no oath, and need impose on himself no 
duties of any kind, but, with uncontrolled and boundless 
power, do as he pleased. By this means was lost an interest 


1“ ALLEN,” pp. 310-11. 

2 In 1537, by pulling out the eyes. Even the punishment of death 
was inflicted for keeping a hunting dog.— ALLEN, 313. 

* ALLEN, p. 319. 


86 CONDITION OF THE DANISH PEOPLE, 


in public affairs, and the public spirit and co-operation of the 
people with the government was annihilated.' The peasantry 
remained in the same slavery as before, and the nobility 
retained a great part of their privileges. The wretchedness 
of the peasantry was still further aggravated, after the year 
1687, by new despotic laws; “so that one-fifth part of the 
farms on the crown-lands lay waste, and things appeared to 
be still worse on private estates.”? In the year 1702, 
Frederick LV. abolished slavery; but another yoke—attach- 
ment to the soil—was soon put in its place; so that the 
position of the peasantry, by a regulation of 1764, was little, 
or not at all, different from their former thraldom. The 
result was, that the population of the country in the 
eighteenth century diminished from year to year, innumer- 
able peasant farms were abolished, and even whole villages 
destroyed to make room for manors.’ Schools were want- 
ing. The education of the people still stood, in 1766, at the 
very lowest grade. It was not until 1804 that personal 
freedom was conferred on twenty thousand families, who had 
been in a state of servitude.‘ 

The Provincial Estates, introduced by Frederick VI., did 
not restrain the absolutism of the Danish monarch. An 
observer, favourable to the Danes, Mr. Laing, a Scotchman, 
remarked in the year 1839—that since the Danes are, 
politically, quite passive, and had no voice in their own 
affairs, they had found themselves, in spite of many good 
regulations of the government, merely in the same state in 
which they had been in 1660, and had remained two 
hundred years behind the Scotch, Dutch, and Belgians, with 
whom, according to their population and position, they best 
could be compared.° 





! ALLEN, p. 336. 2 ALLEN, pp. 389, 431. 

* ALLEN, p. 438. Out of 600 landed proprietors in “‘ Holland” before 
the year 1660, there were no more than 100 remaining in 1766. 

* How much remained to be done for ‘‘ the Danish peasantry,” is shown 
by a frightful description of their situation in WeGrnrr’s “ Chronik 
Friedrichs VI.,” in the “‘ Gegenwart.” Leipz., 1853, vol. viii. p. 473. 

5 “Tour in Sweden.” London, 1839, p. 12, 


LUTHERANISM IN SWEDEN. 87 


In March, 1848, “after a hundred years of legalised and 
systematic despotism,” Denmark had its revolution; and 
the government of Frederick VII. was brought, by frequent 
changes of ministry, into relations with a Diet, in which (in 
most striking contrast to the former state of things) the 
peasant-order preponderated. To this must be added a press, 
which in boundless licentiousness equalled that of the 
French, in 1793.1. A new institution—a national convoca- 
tion—(a Reichsrath), two-thirds of which were elected by 
the people, was created; and now the fate of the greatly 
enfeebled monarchy will very speedily be decided. 

In Sweden, Gustavus Vasa had introduced the Lutheran 
religion, and by robbing an immoderately wealthy Church, 
had founded a strong monarchy and kingdom. The people 
were, in fact, cheated out of their religion; for Gustavus 
had always denied that he had introduced any new doctrine ; 
and fifty years afterwards, notwithstanding the changes that 
had been made, a great part of the people were not at all 
aware that they were not Catholics!” By degrees, however, 
Sweden became a thoroughly Lutheran country. 

Three results now followed. The first we will permit to 
be described by the classical historian of Sweden—-Geijer. 
After the great religious wars, he says, the share of the 
Commons, in Ecclesiastical affairs, was suspended, and in 
the same degree that of the princely power was confirmed. 
Thus the Church lost more and more its connection with the 
people, and soon became merely a monarchical or aristo- 
cratical external form—a clerical addition to the military and 
civil officers of the State.’ 

The second result which followed the subjugation and 
spoliation of the Church by the monarch was, a new public 
law. Gustavus declared that the commonage lands of the 
villages and hamlets, and even also the rivers, weirs, and 
mining districts—finally, even all uncultivated lands, were 


1“ Allgemeine Zeitung,” 1859, p. 5932. 

2 GeIJER’s “ Geschichte Schwedens,” ii. 218. 

+“ Ueber die innern gesellschaftlichen Verhiiltnisse unsere Zeit mit 
besonderer Riicksicht auf Schweden.” Stockholm, 1845, p. 47. 


88 RESULTS OF THE REFORMATION. 


the property of the Crown. Therewith was, as Geijer says, 
an arbitrary power given into the hands of the King, which 
was extremely perilous to the rights of private property 
belonging to individuals.!. Gustavus unhesitatingly per- 
severed. in his spoliations; and, since he looked upon himself 
as the universal heir to Church property, he took also the 
farms wherever he pleased.2, He could not, however, keep 
the whole inheritance of the Church to himself: the nobility, 
whose support he much needed, had to be adopted as co-heirs ; 
and, in the end, obtained an equal, or still larger share of 
profit than the monarchy, from the change in religion. 

As a third result of the Reformation, came that dislocation 
of the national relations of the Estates, that discord into civil 
order which has given to the history of Sweden for three 
hundred years its changeful character, and has occasioned 
a series of revolutions, such as never occurred in any 
European state until 1789; and which has also elicited 
revengeful feelings, party spirit, intrigues, a violent disposi- 
tion, corruption, and caprice, as prominent national character- 
istics.2 Three of their kings have: the Swedes (namely 
the nobles) murdered—Erick IV., Charles XII. and Gus- 
tavus III; two of them have been deposed, Sigismund and 
Gustavus IV; and finally, they have driven out their native, 
hereditary dynasty, and presented or sold their crown to a 
foreign officer, one of Napoleon’s generals. 

Here, too, as well as in Denmark, there has arisen out of 
the Reformation an oppressive and pettifogging domination 
on the part of the nobility; and it was only because “ the 
laws and customs of Sweden in its early rude state had been 
so excellent,” as Arndt says, “that Sweden was saved from 
the fate of Russia and Poland.‘ There was wanting, the 
dignified, independent position, and the regulating influence 
of the Church. The Lutheran clergy were always too 
dependent on the possessors of power.” Arndt further 
remarks, “that the priests” (for the clergy there are called 
priests) “have always been accused of never having originated 


1 GEVJER, ii, 101. 2 GEIJER, ii. 110. * See ARNDT, pp. 29, 31. 
* **Schwedische Geschichten.” Leipsic, 1839, p. 30. 


DOMINATION OF THE NOBILITY. 89 


an important movement; and, also, that they, more than any 
other of the Estates, have been the most subservient to those 
possessed of power.! The Reformation had given over the 
clergy completely into the hands of the king and the 
nobility. Every nobleman residing in a parish had the right 
of choosing the pastor, whom he paid whatever he chose to 
give.? 

The four Estates were represented at the Diet; but the 
nobility, who possessed almost all the public offices of the 
kingdom, were the only real Estate of the monarchy, and 
dared not be outvoted by the other Estates. As to the 
peasantry—being under the control of the nobility—they 
were only indirectly subjects of the kingdom.? As the 
nobility had, already, on the change of religion, and at the 
division of the Church plunder, gained immensely in posses- 
sions, privileges, power, and influence, so was their gain still 
further increased, when the government was compelled to 
alienate its domains, and could only alienate them to nobles.‘ 

There were, indeed, after the death of Gustavus, attempts 
occasionally made on the part of the clergy to withdraw 
themselves from the domination of the nobility. They de- 
sired that the admissibility to office should be made possible 
for the sons of preachers; but the nobility were too strong 
for them, and the hopes that were held out to Bishops, 
Superintendents, and Doctors of Theology, of being them- 
selves ennobled, sufficed to separate the higher from the lower 
clergy.’ ‘That a married clergy cannot attain to a resolute 
corporate position, or cannot maintain it, lies in the nature of 
things. Under the yoke of a nobility-mastership the pea- 
sant class had been impoverished and degraded, and the 
people had become feeble, wretched, and oppressed.® To 
free themselves from this yoke, they endeavoured in Sweden, 
as well as in Denmark, to make the King’s power unlimited. 
Thus, in the year 1680, the Estates declared, “ That the King 
was bound to no special form of government”; and in the 

1 ARNDT, p. 47. 2 GEDER, iii. 400. 2 GEER, iii. 18, 


* Giver, “‘ Ueber die innern gesellsch, Verhiiltnisse,” p. 65. 
5 GEIJER, “* Verhiiltnisse,” p. 110, 6 ARNDT, p. 80, 


90 mal SWEDISH FREEDOM. 


year 1682, “the Estates held it as absolutely unreasonable 
that the King should be compelled, by statutes or ordinances, 
first to hear the Estates ;” and from this time was adopted the 
maxim, “That the King’s will is law,” and everything, as 
Geijer says, was now interpreted to the advantage of an 
Autocracy. The Estates were no longer called the Estates 
of the Kingdom, but of his Royal Majesty; and in the year 
1693 the monarchy was declared to be fully absolute. “The 
King,” it was said, “could, without any responsibility, go- 
vern according to his own will. 

This led to the pernicious reign of Charles XII., who had, 
in answer to the Diet, told them “he would send one of his 
boots to preside over them.” His reign plunged the country 
into the greatest misery, and brought it to the very brink of 
destruction. 

After his murder kingly absolute power was condemned, 
and what is called “Swedish freedom,” that is to say, the 
mastership of the nobility, was re-established. All power 
and official administration, all great privileges and superior 
rights, fell again into the hands of the nobility. In the acts 
of the Diet, from 1720 till 1772, “aristocratic ignorance and 
arrogance were” (according to Arndt’s remark) “ expressed 
in the most shameless terms against what were called the 
lower Estates.” The monarchy was a mere misty shadow— 
despicable and impotent. At the same time, two factions of 
the nobility contended fiercely fordominion. These were the 
“hats” and the “caps,” or the French and Russian parties. 
At length Gustavus III. brought about the bloodless revolu- 
tion of 1772: the Council was dissolved, and the King again 
ruled as lord. But he was not long a match for the sobiliegs 
The officers of his own army betrayed him, and he fell at last, 
in 1792, the victim of a conspiracy of the nobility.” 

“Until now,” says Geijer, in the year 1845, “no change 
in the representation has ever taken place in Sweden, unless 
in and by a revolution; and of revolutions, after our own 
fashion, we have had too many.”* Since the assassination of 


? Geer, pp. 113, 115. ? ARDNT, p. 92. 
* “ Ueber die innern gesellsch. Verhiiltnisse,” p. 128. 





POSITION OF AFFAIRS IN GERMANY. gi 


Gustavus, Sweden has become the hotbed of intrigue and — 
corruption. Finland was parted with to Russia—lost by the 
treacherous sale of the fortresses—Gustavus IV. was de- 
throned—even his posterity were excluded, and a foreign 
officer, unknown in Sweden, was preferred, to be the founder 
of a new dynasty, to the descendants of Vasa. The acqui- 
sition of Norway—continuing independent—was no compen- 
sation for the loss of Finland. Sweden now stands powerless 
before the mighty Northern Colossus, whose cannons can 
almost reach its capital; and it can but now abide whatever 
Russia may be pleased to decide concerning its destiny. 

Mr. Laing, the Scotchman, who has occupied himself much 
with the political and moral condition of the Swedish people, 
and both in the one respect and the other, assigns to Sweden 
the lowest place amongst the nations of Europe, has, although 
himself a decided Protestant, come to the conclusion that 
the Reformation has injured more than it has benefited the 
moral and social state of the Swedish nation; and that the 
Lutheran Church has shown itself to be completely powerless 
in its influence on the people; whilst the Catholic Church, on 
the contrary, had been in its time, as he affirms, an effective 
system of moral discipline.! 

In Germany it was a natural result of the Reformation 
that the power of the prince and of the imperial cities (of 
their magistrates namely) should be increased, and the free- 
dom of the lower order of nobles, the rural classes, and the 
peasantry diminished.?, The German clergy had previously 
been (unfortunately for themselves) the richest and most 
powerful in the world, and the change was now so complete, 
that their Protestant successors became, according to Menzel, 
the mere serviceable tools of political power, and within a 
very short time the most insignificant link in the chain with 
which the new order of things had bound the nation.? 

A brief survey of the position of affairs in particular Ger- 
man states will serve to show more clearly the great change 

1“ Tour in Sweden,” p. 125. 


? Lxo’s ‘‘ Universalgeschichte,” iii. 208. 3d Edit. 
* “ Neuere Geschichte der Deutschen,” y. 5, 6. 


ee | MECKLENBURG. 


that the Reformation had effected in the political and social 
condition of the nations. 

In Mecklenburg the first effect was, that the order of pre- 
lates disappeared from the Diet. Since the year 1552, only 
two orders had appeared there—the Ritterschaft, or Equestrian 
Order; and the Landschaft, or Provincial Estates. 

The nobles as well as the dukes had carried off their 
share of the Church property ; and there now began a system 
of subjugation and plunder of the peasantry, whose rights, 
since the suppression of the Church, no one any longer re- 
presented. The plan was to appropriate the labour of the 
peasantry for the benefit of the nobles, and to drive them 
from their farms by the process called “ Legan,” or laying. 
At the Diet of Giistrow, in the year 1607, the peasants were 
declared to be mere colonists, who were bound to give up pos- 
session of their lands, even of those that they might have held 
from time immemorial, at the desire of their landlords. In 
the year 1621, the unlimited disposal of the farm lands was 
secured to the landlords; and subsequently, by the ordinances 
of 1633, 1646, and 1654, the personal freedom of the pea- 
santry was completely annihilated, and all persons of this 
class declared to be serfs.' As the peasants frequently en- 
deavoured to escape from this slavery by flight into other 
countries, they were punished, when they were caught, by 
flogging, and other severe penalties were inflicted upon them, 
and occasionally even they were put to death. In the year 
1660, indeed, the punishment of death was openly affixed to 
the crime of leaving the principality. ‘ Then,” says Boll, 
“was forged the slave-chain which our peasantry had to drag 
within a few decades of the present time. Their lot was 
only in so far better than that of negro slaves, that it was 
forbidden to sell them singly, like so many head of cattle, by 
public auction, to the highest bidder, but it happened never- 
theless often enough that people traded underhand with their 
serfs, precisely as they did with their horses and cows. 

About the middle of the eighteenth century it is observed 


* Botw’s ‘Geschichte Mecklenburgs.” New Brandenburg, 1855, i, 
p. 352; ii. 142-147-48. 


POMERANIA. 93 


the peasantry of Mecklenburg were treated by the nobles 
like the most abject slaves,! and they attempted, whenever 
they could, to make their escape, even to Russia. To pre- 
vent this, they were again threatened with condemnation to 
forced labour in the prisons or fortresses ; and “ there was,” 
according to the ordinance, “a complete depopulation of our 
generally thinly-populated country, and the ruin of all the 
landed estates was greatly to be feared.”? In the year 1820 
serfage was abolished. 

In Pomerania, which, down to 1637, had its own Duke, 
though it was afterwards united with the Margravate of 
Brandenburg, Protestantism had won the victory so early as 
1534. Duke Philip had well weighed the project that the 
new doctrine would bring him “in the wealth of the clergy 
—the numerous prerogatives and the supreme headship of 
the National Church.” The citizens, say the historians 
of Pomerania, having attained the spiritual goal (of the 
Reformation), renounced mere earthly freedom ; and in 
Stralsund and Stettin all representation of the Commons 
ceased. The lower population of the towns became “ pain- 
fully sobered from its dream of civil freedom, and looked 
with contented resignation to heaven.” The confiscated 
Church property was squandered here, as in many other 
places, in luxury, drink, and gormandizing. The fate of the 
peasantry in Pomerania was what it had been in Mecklen- 
burg. Since the Reformation the “laying” of the villages 
had been carried on with great earnestness and success, and 
sheep pastures and manors took their place. Sometimes the 
nobles would lay waste the peasants’ farms, inclose them in 
their estates, and by that means make them free from taxa- 
tion. The oppression of the peasantry became so atrocious, 
_that even those who still held farms fled the country.6 But 


1 Franke’s ‘* Altes und neues Mecklenburg,” i. 102. 

2 Bout, ii. 569. : 

’ BarTHOLD’s ‘ Geschichte von Pommern,” iv. 2, 259. 

‘ BARTHOLD, 297-299. 

5 Arnpt, ‘ Gesch. der Leibeigenshaft in Pommern und Riigen,” 1803, 
p- 143. ° ARNDT, 159, 211; Barton, 365. 


94 BRUNSWICK AND HANOVER. 


it was, according to Barthold, the principle of the Roman 
law that first brought down the full curse of slavery upon 
Pomerania. In the Peasant Ordinance of 1616,! they 
were declared to be “serfs without any civil rights,” and 
preachers were compelled to proclaim fugitive peasants from 
the pulpit. The peasants whose farms were seized by the 
nobles were in general completely plundered ; and the Pome- 
ranian jurist and noble, Balthazar, confessed, in the year 
1779, whilst in Germany the original serfs had become almost 
free, in Pomerania the ancient methods of establishing serf- 
dom had increased. And down to the present century 
complaints were made of the desolation of the country, and 
the thinness of the population. 

In the territories of Brunswick and Hanover it is very 
evident how the new absolute ecclesiastical power of the 
princes, simultaneously with the substitution of the Roman 
law for the German, which took place subsequently to the 
Reformation, undermined the ancient liberties of the nation, 
and paved the way for the bureaucratic mode of government 
and arbitrary power. The judges and magistrates, taken 
from the rural districts, were gradually supplanted by lawyers, 
salaried as princely counsellors ; and cases formerly de- 
cided by precedent and the law of the country, were now 
settled by Roman law.? The towns lost the independence 
they had inherited (Brunswick alone retained it for some time 
longer), “and the rulers, supported by learned disciples of the 
Roman law, exercised an arbitrary authority before unknown.” 
The confiscated Church property sufficed, at least for some 
time, for a luxurious and extravagant mode of life in the 
palaces, and a great increase in the number of attendants. 
In the courts of law, for the speedy verbal method of trans- 
acting business, was substituted a tedious, long-winded 
written process.2 Down to the middle of the seventeenth 


1 Dannert, “* Urkunden-Sammlung,” iii, 835. 

* HavEMANN, “ Geschichte der Lande Braunschweig und Liineburg,” 
1856, ii. 479.—** With all these complaints of the state of the country,” 
says SpirrLer (‘‘Gesch. von Hannover,” i. 347), “the Roman law 
obtained a complete victory.” * HAVEMANY, ii. 515. 


THE PRUSSIAN TERRITORIES. 95 


century, the cities and the knightly order offered some 
resistance to the measureless extravagance, oppressive taxes, 
and demands of the Court; but the old beneficent institution 
of Administrative Councils chosen from various orders—nobles, 
prelates, and others, who had mediated between sovereigns 
and their subjects, and whose decisions in cases of dispute 
were binding also on the princes—now fell to decay through 
the absence of the spiritual members, consequent on the 
Reformation, and became gradually supplanted by a 
Princely College.! The habits of extravagance engendered 
and encouraged by the robbery of the Church property 
occasioned a complete disorder in the finances of the Princi- 
palities ; the princes took to debasing the coinage, and other 
immoral means. The nuisance and scandal of “money- 
clipping,” combined with the general luxury and passion for 
gormandizing and drinking, completed the ruin of thousands.? 
In place of the decisions of the Administrative Councils 
came ordinances of the governments (first, in the Principa- 
lity of Calenberg, in 1651); and soon after this the last 
traces of the ancient freedom and independence of the 
Estates was annihilated. ‘“ The clergy,” says Havemann, 
“had been long (that is, since the Reformation) sunk into 
dependence, and the nobles had entered into the service of 
the Court. The cities were languishing for want of public 
spirit; and in the after-pains of the great German War, as 
well as of corrupt internal government, the ‘free’ princely 
power of modern States was unfolding itself over the sad 
remains of the ancient life and liberty of the Estates.” 

In the Brandenburg and Prussian territories the condition 
of the Estates, even after the Reformation, remained for a 
time strong and unbroken. Duke Albert of Prussia was a 
man feeble in character, and had, in the consciousness . 
of his very doubtful title, been fearful in his dealings 
with the Estates; and the Elector Joachim was, by his own 
extravagance and that of his paramour, rendered constantly 


1 HAVEMANN, iii. 112. 2 SPITTLER, i. 380. 
3 «* Geschichte der Lande Braunschw. und Liineburg,” iii. 172. 


96 CONDITION OF THE PEASANTS. 


dependent on them for the payment of his debts.!_ His son, 
John George, found himself (1571 to 1598) in the same 
pecuniary dependence. The condition of the peasants had 
become more and more miserable? since the Church had fallen ; 
and the nobles and princes were the only powers in the country. 
After the seventeenth century, the princely power, by the im- 
poverishment of the nobles and cities, continually struggled 
onwards to unrestrained dominion. Military executions, for- 
merly quite unknown in Germany, became frequent, especially 
for non-payment of imposts. The Estates were not summoned 
to meet, and the prince imposed taxes by his own autho- 
rity. Stenzil has not allowed it to pass unobserved, how, 
in Prussia also, the princely power being above that of 
the Church, led to the practice, that affairs of the higher 
police and the administration, which were formerly discussed 
and determined by the Estates, should be more constantly 
decided by princes on their own authority, and settled in the 
cabinet,® so that the Estates became continually more insig- 
nificant, and the government in an increasing ratio more 
despotic and bureaucratic. 

After the reign of the Elector Frederick-William (1640- 
1688), the absolute arbitrary power of the government was 
developed more systematically. A General Diet was not 
called after 1656; and the oppressive taxes imposed not only 
without the consent, but against the protest of the Estates, 
were extorted by the Elector with military-violence—so that 
the peasants left their farms by troops, and turned robbers. 
Peasants and nobles fled to Poland, twelve thousand farms 
lay uncultivated, and the taxes of many thousands of acres 
were greater than their produce. The Estates of the Duke- 
dom of Prussia, who had imagined themselves still protected by 
the treaties with Poland, asserted that all that was left them 
of their ancient freedom was “the right of complaining of their 
ruin;” and they threatened to emigrate. Inthe Markgravate, 
the Estates were degraded into a mere credit institution. 


* Gaius, ‘ Gesch. der Mark Brandenburg,” iii. 94. 
? STENZEL, ‘‘ Gesch. d. Preuss. Staats.,” i. 347. 

5“ Gesch. des Preuss. Staats.” i. 359. 

* STENZEL, ii. 422, 


THE LUTHERAN CLERGY IN PRUSSIA. 97 


It was an unexampled tyranny, and deeds worse than those 
of the French, when laying waste the Palatinate, were perpe- 
trated by a prince whom persons afterwards agreed—and in 
his dominions, too—to call “the Great!” 

Prussia was, according to Stenzel’s expression, on the 
way to a complete Asiatic despotism, which would stifle 
everything noble and beautiful. To maintain soldiers, and 
to gratify a passion for the chase (for which the Elector 
kept three thousand people in his pay),! were the objects for 
which the country was exhausted, and many thousands 
brought to beggary, whilst, at the same time, the subjec- 
tion and serfdom of the peasants was maintained in all its 
severity. 

Frederick I., the parade-loving first king of Prussia, con- 
tinued the system of his father; and the Estates, where they 
still subsisted, had no other function than, willingly or un- 
willingly, to vote taxes and guarantee loans.2 Frederick 
William I., however, (1713—1740) surpassed even his grand- 
father ; and with his accession began in Prussia the reign of 
a petty, capricious, and often cruel despot ;* a harsh, narrow- 
minded man, filled with the notion of his own unlimited 
power, and eager only for money and soldiers, who beat his 
judges with sticks, to compel them to alter their decisions 
according to his wishes; who had men hanged “ witheut 
prolix law-suits,” and who decreed, that if a deserter should 
be harboured in any hamlet or place too poor for a pecuniary 
fine, the chief inhabitants should be made “to drag carts” 
for some months. Under this king, the Lutheran clergy 
had to drink to the very dregs the bitter cup of monarchical 
Church supremacy. The king himself undertook reforms, in 
ecclesiastical as well as worldly affairs, in an equally ignorant 
and arbitrary spirit. He dictated to the Lutheran clergy, 
as their spiritual head, what subjects they were to treat upon 
in their pulpits, and what they were to be silent about; as well 


1 STENZEL, ii. 456. 2 STENZEL, iii. 196. 
* “ T) faut donner une victime au bourreau,” said the nobles, speaking 
of him. —MorsensterN, ‘‘ Ueber Fr. Wilh. den Ersten.” Brunswick, 
1793, p. 140, 4 Forster’s “ Friedrich Wilhelm I.,” ii. 202. 


H 


98 . DESPOTISM OF FREDERICK II. 


‘as what ceremonies were to be observed at divine service, 
and what to be omitted. Thus, for instance, in 1729, he 
forbid the Lutherans to carry a crucifix or a cross before the 
body, at funerals, as the custom was known to bear a vexatious 
relic of Papistry.” ! 

His son, Frederick II., was enabled, by his own genius, 
and the utmost exertion of all the energies of his people, and 
all the resources of the country, to raise Prussia into the 
rank of a powerful state of European importance. His 
government, also, was a pure despotism; but it was, in the 
French sense of the word, “an enlightened, philosophical 
despotism,” and the despot was a man of powerful mind—a’ 
born ruler of men—who knew how to inspire his people with 
a spirit not so much national as devoted to the Prussian 
state. The most numerous portion of the population remained, 
however, in the same oppressed, miserable condition as 
before. The greater part of the rural inhabitants were so 
entirely without personal freedom, that Buchholtz compares 
their condition to that of a West Indian colony.” Frederick 
decreed, not only that discharged soldiers should again 
become subject to their former landlords, but even that their 
wives, widows, and children should be submitted to the same 
destiny.* Dietereci,the Prussian government statist, describ- 
ing in 1848 the state of the country in 1806, exclaims, at the 
conclusion of his portraiture, “ How many restraints are there 
on the freedom of the individual! How many difficulties 
are thrown in the way of a man wishing to exercise his 
energies—to improve his condition, and earn as much as 
possible! How much personal dependence is there of one 
on another. What arbitrary authority !—what violence on 
the part of the privileged towards the unprivileged or 
oppressed! What heavy taxes and personal burdens are 
laid on the lower classes!* One kind of liberty, however, 


‘ STENZEL, iii. 474. See also p. 475, the description of the so-called 
‘Priest Review” in Berlin. 

* “ Gemiilde des gesellch. Lebens im Kénigr. Preussen,” i. 19. 

§ Verordnung Vom., 7th April, 1777. 

* “ Ueber Preussische Zustiinde.” Berlin, 1848, p. 13. 


CHURCH AND STATE OPPRESSION IN SAXONY. DS 


Frederick had left the people. Every one was allowed to 
seek salvation in his own way; and every one might, if he 
pleased, after the example of the sovereign, announce himself 
as a mocker of religion. 

In the Electorate of Saxony, it is very evident how, after 
the Reformation, the princely power over the whole Church 
went hand-in-hand with the increase of taxation—the oppres- 
sion of the lower classes, the extinction of ancient liberties, 
and the ever-growing vice of over-government. The struggle 
between the Lutherans and Calvinists, which broke out 
twice under Augustus and Christian I., led to a long series 
of acts of violence, to depositions and banishments, to the 
dungeon, the rack, and the scaffold. The government iatruded 
itself into every sphere of life, in order to root out more 
effectually Calvinism, which had got intothe land, and to insure 
the strictest observance of Lutheranism, which was further 
secured by a new book of Faith, and an oath to be taken upon 
it. People became accustomed to violent modes of proceeding, 
and to a severe and unmerciful treatment of those who were 
subjects. The cities lost their former independence, the 
Estates had to submit to the most oppressive laws of the 
chase,! and even, in 1612, the introduction of a secret 
police ;* and they were obliged more and more to limit their 
functions to the granting of taxes, and in undertaking the 
payment of the Prince’s debts. At the Diet of Torgau, in 
1555, the Estates declared, “it wes not possible for them to 
pay the new excise on liquor—theis lands would become waste, 
and they would be utterly ruined.” But it was maintained, 
nevertheless, and, in 1582, with the addition of a greatly 
increased land-tax. The results were such, that even one 
of the Court preachers declared “that the people were so 
* destitute, that they had scarcely the means of keeping them- 
selves alive;” and a contemporary reports “that in 1580 
the people were so steeped in poverty and hunger, that they 


1 All dogs, not belonging to persons whose occupation is the chace, were 
to have a fore-foot cut off.—B6éTTicHER, ii. 67. 

? BorricueEr, ii. 141. 

’ GRETSCHEL, ‘‘ Gesch. des Siichs. Volkes und Staates,” ii. 70. 


H 2 


ae THE DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH. 


had eaten the husks in brewhouses.”! “It is not to be 
denied,” says Arnold, “that tyranny, injustice, and extortions 
had risen to the highest point since the Reformation.”” 

I refrain from entering into any further consideration of 
‘the state of affairs in Germany—in Hesse, Wiirtemberg, and 
still smaller states. It is sufficient to quote Stenzel’s remark : 
“ Whilst the unlimited power of the princes advanced in 
many other German countries, no less rapidly than in 
Prussia, the produce of the subject’s toil was, in that 
country, lavished upon mistresses, favourites, courtiers, cham- 
berlains, opera singers, dancers, and other objects of princely 
caprice, and ministrants to princely pleasure, without any of 
it being expended on the higher purposes of a government.’ 

Let us now turn to those countries which accepted Protest- 
antism in its Calvinistic form, amongst which the Nether- 
lands and Scotland appear the most prominent. England, 
with its Church like to none other, is to be considered by 
itself. We will not speak of Switzerland, since there 
Catholic and Protestant cantons subsist together, and no one 
will maintain that civil liberty has flourished more in the 
latter than in the former. 

The Netherlands, that dismembered portion of Germany 
which came forth from the struggle with Spain, in the form 
of a Republic, but had barely maintained itself as such, 
through the internal contests and factions of two hundred 
years, and had vacillated between the “republican” constitu- 
tion desired and represented by the city aristocracy, and the 
‘“ monarchical,” represented by the Stadtholder-General and 
the House of Orange. Had Calvinism become generally preva- 
lent in the country, the power of that house would have been 
developed, and confirmed as a stable religious or political 
despotism. “The Dutch Reformed Church,” says Niebuhr, - 
“has always, wherever it was free, become coarsely tyran- 
nical, and has never, either for the spirit it manifested, or 
the good dispositions of its teachers, deserved any great 
esteem. The Calvinistic religion has everywhere, in England, 


1“ Jenisii Annal. Anneberg,” p. 45, 2 *t Kirchenhistorie,” i, 792. 
* ** Geschichte des Preuss. Staates,” ii, 4, 


POLITICO-ECCLESIASTICAL STRUGGLES. 101 


in Holland, as in Geneva, set up its blood-stained scaffold as 
well as the Inquisition, without its possessing a single one of 
the merits of the Catholic.’ 

The uncontrolled rule of Calvinism, and with it that of the 
House of Orange, was prevented, partly by the formation of 
new sects, partly by the continued adherence to Catholicity 
of a considerable portion of the population, which was, 
indeed, robbed of every civil and ecclesiastical right; but 
being, by that very means, withdrawn from the influence of 
party spirit, threw its weight—as far as it had any—into the 
scale of the Orange party and the Stadtholdership, and 
strengthened the opposition to the domination of the Calvin- 
istic preacher-party. The new Arminian doctrine, which 
opposed the Calvinistic, brought about the first politico- 
ecclesiastical struggle. With the execution of Olden-Bar- 
neveldt,:the imprisonment of the Arminians, and the holding 
of the Dordrecht Synod, the United Calvinist and Orange 
party obtained a complete victory; but the party of the 
States, the chiefs of which were disposed to Arminianism, 
or at all events friendly to the Arminians, rose again 
after the death of Maurice. And then, when Holland declared 
the Provincial Estates the sovereigns of the country, 
William II. took up arms; and it seemed to him that he 
would be able to succeed in subjecting the republic to monar- 
chical dominion; but his bold plan was frustrated, in 1650, 
by death. The States party now obtained a transitory 
preponderance, and attempted, by its ‘‘ Perpetual Edict,” to 
get rid of the Orange party and their Stadtholdership. 
The contest led to a bloody conflict. Young William III, 
of Orange, was brought forward by the Calvinistic preachers, 
and the populace under their guidance; and the murder of 
the brothers De Witt, which William had sanctioned and 
turned to account, confirmed his authority.2,~ When, how- 
ever, he became King of England, and governed the Nether- 
lands from thence, there arose in Zeeland and elsewhere an 
energetic resistance. 


1 “* Nachgelassene Schriften.” Hamburg, 1842, p. 288. 
2 Van Kampen, “ Geschichte d. Niederlande,” ii. 322. 


102 . THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND. 


Their great, and, on the whole, their successful wars, their 
naval supremacy, their foreign conquests—all those things 
turned the energy and the attention of the nation to external 
affairs, and domestic dissensions were thereby checked. But 
with the eighteenth century decay set in. The selfishness of 
the provinces asserted itself against the country at large, and 
that of the cities against the provinces. Eagerness for money, 
a narrow, shopkeeping greed, and party spirit, remained to the 
end of the century the chief motive powers of the people. 
There were no longer any men of weighty character; there 
was only a crowd of little tyrants, and at the same time, as 
Niebuhr observes, “not only the ruin of the States but the 
decline of the nation was hastened by the madness of party 
spirit.” Towards the end of the century even foreign aid — 
was called in, and the Netherlanders saw without shame 
Prussians, French and English in the heart of their country. 
The Prussians in 1787 conquered Amsterdam, and procured 
for “the Orangemen” the triumph they had desired. The 
“patriots” fled to France, and in 1795, without striking 
a blow, took possession of the whole country. From this 
time forth, the French revolutionary doings—with clubs, 
Jacobinism, and all their appurtenances—were mimicked 
by a people who had now lost all character of their own. 
The Netherlands became the Batavian Republic, after that 
a French kingdom, next a French province, and finally— 
but by the aid of foreign powers—again an independent 
kingdom. 

The freedom enjoyed in the Netherlands was essentially 
determined by the circumstance that Calvinism had lost its 
great authority; and we see in Scotland, where Calvinism in 
its most genuine form had been introduced by Knox, a simi- 
lar result. Up to the end of the sixteenth century the civil 
condition of the country was very unsettled. It had long 
been the prey of feudal violence and private feuds, which 
James I., towards the end of his reign in 1624, boasted of 
having suppressed. Then came the period of the struggle 
against the “episcopal constitution” and “the Liturgy,” 
which Charles I. wished to force upon the Scots. With the 


CALVINISTIC SPIRITUAL TYRANNY. ~ 103 


victory obtained by Scotch Calvinism, was that state of Pro- 
testant power and supremacy restored, which the Reformation 
in Scotland, according to the intentions of its founder, had 
established, since the Reformer Knox declared that the “ or- 
dering and reformation of religion specially appertains to the 
civil magistrate,”! and the punishment of death was on two 
different occasions affixed to the celebration of mass. And 
now began such a system of spiritual tyranny, and such 
merciless meddling in private and family life, as has never 
been seen anywhere else, except in North America. 

The Presbyteries extended their power so far, and wielded 
the terrible weapon of excommunication, which amounted 
almost to complete expulsion and banishment from society, 
with such effect, that no one could feel himself secure, and 
that almost every action of life might be brought before the 
Presbyterian forum.? Asa matter of course, every attempt 
in a spiritual direction to break through the narrow limits 
of Calvinistic views was crushed in the germ. 

It ‘has often been maintained that the Calvinistic Church 
Constitution was, before all others, popular and favourable to 
freedom, because it afforded so much room to the lay element 
in the Presbyteries, and gave it so much influence even in 
higher matters. Experience has shown, however, that no 
other Church form ever led to so potent and intolerable a 
tyranny, or-irritated men everywhere to such strong opposi- 
tion; for which reason, wherever it came, it sowed bitterness 
and discord, and was unable to maintain itself long. The 
institution of the Presbytery, as a tribunal of morals, has never 
been effectively introduced except in small towns and villages, 
where everyone knows the domestic circumstances of every 
other, andstands connected with many others by ties of kindred, 
and everyone is influenced by motives of friendship or hos- 


1“To the civil magistrate specially appertains the ordering and 
reformation of religion.”—‘* Westminster Review,” vol. liv., p. 453. 

? A striking picture of this state of things has been lately given by 
Rosert CHampBers, in his ‘‘ Domestic Annals of Scotland, from the 
Reformation to the Revolution.” Edinburgh, 1858. 


104 THE PRESBYTERY—“ LAY ELDERS.” 


tility. When individuals are chosen in such cases as “lay 
elders” to sit in judgment on their fellow-townsmen, then 
three evils are unavoidably incurred. In the first place, these 
‘men are exposed to the strongest temptation to abuse such a 
completely discretionary and vaguely defined power to pri- 
vate purposes of personal advantage, or for the satisfa¢tion 
of personal dislike or vengeance. In the second place, a 
system of espionage is established in every such community, 
of meddling intrusion into the secrets of private life. De- 
nunciations, tale-bearing, malice, and hatred are all veiled 
under the appearance of religious zeal. In the third place, 
persons invested with such power become the objects of ge- 
neral displeasure, suspicion, and hatred. Their externally 
religious life, which had determined their election, appears 
now as hypocrisy, as a calculated means of advancing them- 
selves. People will consent to allow a certain amount of moral 
and religious authority to a man who has received the seal of 
a special vocation, and occupies a position apart from the 
business of every-day life; but they will not consent to sub- 
ject themselves in religious affairs to one who is entirely their 
equal, and who like themselves is engaged in worldly business 
and the care of their families. That in the age when these 
religions and-churches were constructed, there should have 
been devised an institution like the Presbytery, with lay 
elders and tribunals of morals, is one of the many instances 
of short-sightedness, and want of practical sagacity and 
knowledge of human nature, that were then exhibited by the 
Reformers. 

This state of things had not, however, a lengthened dura- 
tion; for, from 1660 to 1688, the Calvinist Church of Scot- 
Jand was compelled, by the renewed efforts of the English 
Government, tointroduce the Anglican form of worship; and to 
put forth its utmost energies for the preservation of its own 
existence. Calvinism was, indeed, again victorious with the 
Revolution of 1688; but an Act of Parliament of 1712, by 
which the assistance of the temporal arm was refused to 
Presbyterian tribunals, made the re-establishment of the 
former tyranny impossible, and at the same time the 


THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND. - 105 


Calvinists were compelled to tolerate the establishment 
of an Episcopal Church by the side of their own in Scot- 
land. 
England had in its Catholic days, and with the powerful 
assistance of the Church, laid the foundations of its political 
freedom, and carried the edifice far towards completion. It 
was the Church that the nation had to thank for the Magna 
Charta of 1215; for the gradual amalgamation and equaliza~ 
tion of the conqueror and the conquered, of the Norman and 
Anglo-Saxon races, and also for the abolition of “ villenage.” 
The first sparks of the religious conflagration that had 
broken out in Germany had just kindled on the British 
island, when Henry VIII. conceived the plan of opening the 
way for himself to unlimited monarchy, by the complete 
subjugation of the Church. How he succeeded in this is 
well known. He and the succeeding princes of the House 
of Tudor, or those who ruled in their name, could manage 
the National Church as seemed good to them—and they made 
abundant use of their power. It was not till the reign of 
Edward VI. that complete Protestantism, as it had developed 
itself on the Continent, was introduced into England. Eli- 
zabeth restored the work of her brother, or rather of his 
guardians and advisers (after it had been interrupted by 
Mary), but with some important modifications. The Pro- 
testant doctrine was so foreign to the nation, that no English- 
man in the sixteenth century originated a single idea on the 
subject, nor added anything to the doctrine as it was brought 
from the Continent. Nothing more was done than that the 
ready-made doctrine, as it had been stamped in Geneva and 
Zurich, was imposed on the people by those above them. 
By force, and with the assistance of the arms of foreign mer- 
cenaries, were the people compelled to renounce the Catholic 
religion, and submit to the creed of Bullinger and Calvin. 
Even such a laudatory historian of the English Reformation 
as Bishop Burnet, confesses that all the efforts of the Go- 
vernment to overcome the dislike of the people to Protest- 
antism had been in vain, and that a troop of German mer- 
cenaries had to be brought over from Calais, in 1549, to con- 


106. THE NEW STATE CHURCH. 


quer their resistance.! “ With eleven-twelfths of the people,” 
said at that time Paget to the Duke of Somerset, the Pro- 
tector, “the new religion has found no entrance.” ? 

The resistance of the Catholic people was indeed over- 
come, under Edward VI. as well as under Elizabeth, but it 
was found still more difficult, or rather impossible, to establish 
the unity of the Protestant Church, or prevent separations, 
on the basis of the Reformation. 

The new State Church, with its peculiar character and hete- 
rogeneous elements, was of no party, and belonged to no one 
of the systems then present; but owed its existence, on the one 
hand, to the exertions to afford to the still preponderating 
Catholics, by the retention of some externals—the priestly 
vestments and certain customs—an appearance of what was 
traditional and Catholic; and on the other hand, to the per- 
sonal inclinations of the Queen, who, being a Protestant, 
more from policy than from any preference for the doctrine, 
desired to retain as many elements of the old religion as 
possible, at least in the liturgy and the administration of the 
sacraments. The men who stood at the head of the new 
Church, however, Parker, Grindal, Jewell, Nowell, and 
others, were all decided Calvinists, as well as Puritans, 
though they were at the same time very obedient palace 
theologians. In the nation they had no genuine support; 
the portion of the people disposed to Catholicity, which was 
now constantly decreasing, saw in the new Court and State 
Church a less evil than the yoke of hated Calvinism; whilst 
zealous Protestants were all at heart puritanically disposed— 
that is, they reasoned logically that the exterior of a Church 
should express its inner life, and that a Calvinistic doctrine 
required a Calvinistic constitution and a Calvinistic form of 


1“ History of the English Reformation.” London, 1681, fol., iii. 
190-196. ‘*In Cornwall an insurrection broke out in 1547 against the 
Protector, who wished to make England Protestant. The people 
sought to be allowed to obey the decisions of the General Councils 
of the Church.”—*“* Quarterly Review,” 1857, vol. cii. p. 319. In 1569 
there followed in the North a great rising against the yoke of Pro- 
testantism. It was only crushed by wholesale executions. 
~ *$rrype’s ‘ Ecclesiastical Memorials,” ii, Appendix -H. H,. 





.A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, 107. 


divine worship. The State Church had therefore for fifty 
years no theological literature of its own, but subsisted 
entirely on the productions of the Schools of Zurich, Stras- 
burg, and Geneva. It was not till 1594, when Richard 
Hooker came forward with his celebrated book on the con- 
stitution of the Church, that any attempt was made to afford 
it a dogmatic foundation; and here, in a necessary contradis- 
tinction to Calvinism, he endeavoured to make the breach with 
the old Church as trifling as possible, and so found himself 
irresistibly impelled into a path leading back to Catholicity. 
Another extremely important point of dispute now came 
into discussion. The Court reformers of the Tudors, Cranmer 
at their head, had not kept to the theory of other Protestants 
(Lutherans as well as Calvinists)—that the civil authorities 
had also the right of deciding on matters of religion, of 
ordering Church affairs, and, if need were, of reforming the 
Church. They had gone further, and, according to them, 
the King was the representative of God upon earth, in the 
sense that, as High Priest, he was the chief teacher of Church 
doctrine, and the source of every power relating to 
Church service! The archbishops Cranmer and Parker 
maintained that princes could make as good priests 
as bishops, and that a person once nominated a priest 
by the king stood in need of no further ordination. 
They were accustomed, indeed, to except from the func- 
tions of their royal priesthood the performance of divine 
service and the administration of the sacraments. It was 
said the King or the Queen made no claim to these func- 
tions; but it is evident, as a living theologian of the Anglican 
Church has correctly remarked, that this was the only ex- 
ception the Court reformers wished to make, and that they 
claimed for the monarch every other ecclesiastical power.? 
In accordance with these principles was the reformation of 


1“ The vicar of God, the expositor of Catholic verity, the channel of 
sacramental graces”—thus does Macaulay quite correctly express this 
theory in his ‘‘ History of England.”—Tauchnitz Ed., i. 54. 

2, PretyMAN, ‘The Church of England and Erastianism and the 
Reformation.” London, 1854, p. 34. 


108° THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 


the English Church carried through; the bishops consented, 


to receive from the Crown every kind of spiritual power, and 
allowed those powers to be limited or extended at the plea- 
sure of the Crown; and as such powers were supposed to 
expire with the death of the bestower, they had to be re- 
newed at every new accession to the throne.' 

Elizabeth would not indeed appear, as her father and 
brother had done, as possessor of the high priestly dignity ; 
but she and the Parliament together confirmed the principle 
of the boundless power of the monarchy of England over 
the collective Church, and that all jurisdiction concerning the 
doctrine, discipline, or reformation of the Church should be 
vested in the Crown for ever.2, When James I. was on the 
point of ascending the English throne, and was informed for 
the first time of the full extent of the inheritance left him 
by his predecessors, and of the greatness of his royal prero- 
gative, exclaimed, “I do what I please, then. I make the 
Law and the Gospel!’ 

The new Protestant Church became in this way, for a 
hundred and fifty years, the slavish servant of the monarchy, 
the persistent enemy of public liberty. The character of the 
English people seems to have undergone a complete meta- 
morphosis. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, two 
foreign historians, Froissart and Comines, had described 
them as the freest and proudest nation in Europe, the one 
that would least endure oppression. And what had now 
this nation become? Its Parliament subjected its holiest 


1 David Lewis has, in his ‘‘ Notes on the nature and extent of the 
Royal Supremacy in the Anglican Church,” given from original sources 
abundant proofs of this fact. London, 1847. See p. 29 especially. 

2 Yet it was not in fact the Queen or her successors, but the Parlia- 
ment, which formally claimed for itself infallibility, by adding to the Act 
concerning the Royal Supremacy a clause to the effect, that no act or 
decision of the present Parliament on religious matters shall ever be 
altered or regarded as erroneous.”—See the passage in ‘t Lewis,” p. 37. 

* Literally, in his Scotch dialect, ‘‘Do I mak the judges? Do I mak 
the Bishops? Then God’s Wauns! I mak what likes me—law and 
Gospel.” —‘' Hist. Essays,” by Jonn Forster. London, 1858, i. 227. 

* MacauLay’s “ Essays.” Paris, 1843, p. 73. 





SUBJECTION OF THE CHURCH. 109 


interests, the most solemn rights of conscience, to the arbi- 
trary authority of a woman; its Church lay humbly at the 
feet of the monarchy, preaching the absolute power of the 
Crown, and unconditional passive obedience to the will of 
kings. If it is remembered, too, that the Government had 
at the time no standing army in the country, the matter will 
appear still more striking; but the condition of affairs and 
the state of parties well explain all. The Government, by 
supporting itself on two, or in fact on three parties, could 
with their help overpower, first, the adherents of the old 
religion, and then one of the factions which had lent their 
help for that purpose. The State Church had of course in 
its favour all those who had carried off a portion of the 
spoils of the convents, and of the ancient Church—namely, 
the court nobility, and a large proportion of the rural gentry; 
and as long as the object was to destroy the Catholic Church, 
and to oppress its adherents, it had all the Protestants for 
its friends and helpers. United, they would have been 
strong enough to effect a complete Reformation, according to 
the Swiss view, and erect a Calvinistic Church establish- 
ment; but by means of the bait of Church dignities and 
benefices, the Court succeeded in dividing them. The 
majority of the theologians accepted, along with the Cal- 
vinistic dogma, the liturgical and sacramental constituents 
that had been retained from the old Church, partly in the 
hope that if once this dogma should take root in the minds 
of the people, these papistical remains would fall away of 
themselves, or could be easily stript off. The genuine Cal- 
vinists found too late that they had given their assistance to 
the erection of an absolute and oppressive Church and State 
power, and that the rope they had helped to put round the 
necks of the Catholics was now pressing on their own throats; 
and then resistance was broken, under Elizabeth, by the 
dungeon, the rack, and the scaffold. In the Lower House 
sat only Protestants, since the Catholics had been excluded ; 
but amongst these were not a few zealous Puritans, and yet 
laws were passed which affixed the most oppressive and cruel 
punishments to the slightest deviation from Elizabeth’s 


110 THE ORDINANCES OF QUEEN ELIZABETH. 


Church —even the mere absence from Divine service. It 
was, indeed, a great advantage to the Government that 
the Calvinists were united among themselves, for whilst 
Cartwright and his followers were developing the Presby- 
terian system, the more thorough-going Brownists became 
the harbingers of the subsequent Congregationalists. On 
the whole, the state of things was such that, according to 
Macaulay’s expression, had it lasted, the Reformation would 
have been the greatest curse, in a political point of view, 
that had ever fallen upon England.!’ The English people, 
says another historian, had sunk to the lowest degree of 
civil and political degradation to which it is possible to press 
down the moral and physical energy of the Anglo-Saxon 
race.” 

The Queen had established her court of Inquisition,’ which 
decided upon heresy and orthodoxy, and imposed pecuniary 
fines, the dungeon, and the rack, at its pleasure. From this, 
her favourite tribunal, she decreed suspensions or removals 
over the third part of the whole clergy, on account of non- 
conformity. She made it an offence for several persons to 
meet together to read the Holy Scriptures. “No one shall 
be allowed,” she said, in a letter addressed to the Archbishop 
of Canterbury, “to depart, in the smallest degree, to the 
right or the left of the line drawn by my ordinances.” Her 
statesmen andlawyers maintained, and the House of Commons 
readily admitted, that she might exalt herself above all 
laws; could restrain all rights and liberties; that, by means 
of her Dispensing Power, she could set aside every Act of 
Parliament; and that her prerogative had no limits.6 Ac- 
cording to these doctrines she reigned; but tyrannical as 
were many of her proceedings, she was, and remained, in a 
high degree, a popular sovereign. Her subjects did homage 
to her intellectual superiority; they knew that under her 
England was powerful and respected in Europe; that it stood 


1“ Essays,” p. 153. 
* MacGrEGor, “ History of the British Empire.” London, 1852, i., 
p. eclxx, ® Court of High Commission. 


* MacGREGOR, i., eccl. xxi. _ 5 Dr. Ewss, p. 649. 


So 


CATHOLIC LEANING OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. I11 


at the head of Protestant states and Protestant interests 
throughout the world; and they bore from her what a feebler 
or more narrow-minded monarch would not have dared to 
attempt. 

One circumstance of the highest importance prevented the 
English people from sinking into the condition of the Pro- 
testant continent. The country had retained in constant use 
its old Germanic laws. The Roman law could never gain an 
entrance into England; no class of Roman jurists, no officials 
trained in the views of Roman jurisprudence, could ever be- 
formed there. England received no Consistorium, after the 
German pattern ; it never became a bureaucratically-governed 
country; and it kept clear of the continental bureaucracy, 
with its ever-increasing numbers of government officers and 
places. Notwithstanding the exceptional courts created in 
consequence of the Reformation, England had, on the whole, 
maintained the German independence of its courts of law 
against the power of the Crown. 

Under the first Stuarts—James I. and Charles I.—the 
seeds scattered in two opposite directions ripened to their 
harvest. In the State Church, though it took part in the 
Dordrecht Synod, the aversion to Calvinism was constantly 
on the increase; and in the same degree arose the wish and 
the effort to return towards the ancient Church. The anti- 
Calvinistic doctrine, the ecclesiastical-political regulations, 
the theory of an Episcopacy of divine institution, and of 
the Apostolic succession—all this gave to the Anglican 
Church a more Catholic colouring. The Church of England 
was no longer to pass for one of the various Protestant 
communities, but for an improved and purified branch of 
the Catholic Church; and on this account the wrath of the 
Calvinists against all this Arminianism and Papistry in the 
State Church burned the more fiercely. 

The royal supremacy over the Church, now no longer 
maintained by a powerful, respected, and dreaded woman, 
but by a petty, pedantic, and generally despised king, like 
James I., who was always talking of his divine right and 
his unlimited prerogatives, sank very low in public opinion, 


' 


\ 


s1¥2 STRUGGLES OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 


It was also felt that the Church was destined to serve as the 
- protecting bulwark to the absolute power of the monarchs, 
and to act as its pliant tool. Charles the First: actually 
‘declared that he regarded the Episcopacy as a_ stronger 
support of the monarchical power than even the army ;' and 
thus did the political struggle against royalty become like- 
wise a struggle against the “State Church. The Puritans of 
Elizabeth’s time were now, for the most part, Presbyterians ; 
and they sought, in the overthrow of the Episcopal order, 
. the establishment of the Calvinistic doctrine, united with 
stricter Church discipline ; the extermination of the Armin- 
janism and Papistry that had made their way into the 
Church; the abolition of a liturgy, which had been the source 
of these evils; and, finally, they desired to make the Church 
independent of the Crown. Their influence in the Lower 
House was strengthened by the “ doctrinal Puritans ”—that 
is to say, the Calvinistically-disposed members of the State 
Church.2, The Independents wished for no further eccle- 
siastical organisation, but the independence of the several 
congregations; and though they were subsequently the most 
dangerous enemies of the Presbyterians, yet they at first 
made common cause with them against their common enemies 
—monarchy striving for absolute power, and its subservient 
implement, the State Church, 

The vicissitudes of the great politico-ecclesiastical struggle 
are well known. Strafford, Archbishop Laud, King Charles, 
the three representatives of ecclesiastico-political isolate: 
died on the scaffold. The Church fell with the monarchy ; 
but the hopes of the Presbyterians, that they would be able 
to overpower all other churches and parties, as in Scotland, 
and bow the whole English nation under the yoke of genuine 
Calvinism, were frustrated. Their brief triumph was followed 
by defeat, under Cromwell’s dictatorship; the Independents 
rose again, and with them the sects of Baptists and Quakers ; 
and all sects (with the exception, perhaps, of the Quakers) 


1 Macavtay’s “ Essays,” p. 86. 
? See SANDFORD’s “‘ Studies and Illustrations of the great Rebellion.” 
London, 1858, p. 77. 


IMPOSITION OF THE TEST OATH. 113 


desired to rule, and to persecute, and oppress the rest. Of 
the State Church it could hardly be said that it had been 
crushed into a sect, for it had ceased to exist. 

With the Restoration, however, it revived ; it rose into full 
glory as a National and Parliamentary Church, with a royal 
head-bishop, and once more it was able to plant its foot on 
the neck of its enemies. So violent was the re-action against 
the intolerable oppression Calvinism, in its various forms, 
had then recently exercised, that King Charles II. was com- 
pelled to retract his promise of religious toleration. The 
removal of 2000 preachers, the Conventicle Act, the laws 
that annihilated the hopes of the anti-Episcopalians, followed 
rapidly, blow after blow. The Parliament seemed desirous 
of finally settling ecclesiastical affairs, and of securing the 
Episcopal Church, not only in the possession of its ancient 
rights and privileges, but the exclusive possession of the 
nation. In 1673, the Test Oath—a solemn declaration upon 
oath of belonging to the Anglican Church, and an acknow- 
ledgment of the Royal Supremacy—was imposed on all civil 
and military officers. This measure, however, was directed 
especially against the Catholics. Since the heir to the 
throne, the Duke of York, had become a Catholic, fears— 
certainly not unfounded—were entertained, that the future 
king would use his supremacy over the Church to bring it 
back, step by step, to Catholicity. Such apprehensions 
prevailed among all statesmen and zealous Protestants, and 
formed, with them, the strongest motive of political action. 
The Catholics, as a party, could not then cause the slightest 
anxiety. They were lost in the mass of the population, and 
it was only on account of the names of some distinguished 
families that the little group retained any significance at all. 
They would be perfectly content to have, in peace and 
quietness, toleration, and the permission to worship God in 
the chapels attached to their own homes. It was not on 
them that James II. founded his hopes, but upon the reli- 
gious distractions of England; on the unconditional de- 
votion of the State Church to its royal head-bishop; and 
the fidelity with which, as he imagined, they would act up 

I 


114 THE DOCTRINE OF PASSIVE OBEDIENCE. 


to their favourite doctrine of “passive obedience,” and show 
an example to all others; and, finally, he trusted to the 
Catholic elements and tendencies in the Church itself. The 
most important theologians had, then, for fifty years, been 
combating most of the chief doctrines of the Reformation 
—the very foundations of Protestantism — with acuteness 


“and learning, and had declared the old Church doctrine to be, 


in many and important points, the only tenable one. The 
great Protestant doctrine of “ Justification” had been so 
thoroughly demolished by B4ll, Hammond, Thorndyke, and 
others, in the Church, and by Baxter outside of the Church 
—its contradictions and destructive consequences were shown 
to be so glaring, that, in spite of its assertion in the 39 
Articles, it had never been able to maintain itself in the 
Episcopal Church, and no one scientifically-cultivated theo- 
logian continued to defend it.! 

The amalgamation of the political king’s power with that 
of the State Church had generated the doctrine of passive 
obedience; and the Anglican bishops and theologians had 
maintained that, according to Christian principles, the people 
and the Parliament were bound, even in the most extreme cases 
of defence of life, or of the ruin of the social order, not to 
resist the will of the sovereign, but to obey unconditionally ; 
and, in case the thing commanded were a sin, to remain 
entirely passive. They appear to have been considering the 
origin of their religion and Church, which was really the will 
of a king, by whom it had been forced on a reluctant people. 
This duty of passive obedience was, it was said, the doctrine 
of all Protestant Churches, but especially of the English, in 
contradistinction to that of the Catholic, which maintained 
that in certain cases there was a right of resistance, and 
even (according to the principles of the middie ages) of 
deposition of princes in extraordinary circumstances.? This 

1 The so-called Evangelicals at the end of the preceding century, 
Toplady, Venn, Newton, James Hervey, and others, cannot be reckoned 
among learned theologians. 

2 In fact, even under the reign of Philip II., the doctrine put forward 


by a Spanish preacher in Madrid, that kings had an absolute power over 
the persons and property of their subjects, had been condemned by 


AVERSION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 115 


doctrine of passive obedience was not merely taught in books 
and pamphlets,! but it sounded from all pulpits, and was de- 
clared to be a doctrine necessary to salvation.” It was practi- 
cally applied to all the measures of Charles II. and James IL., 
and both monarchs were thus encouraged and assured in their 
efforts for absolute power by the Church, whose Head they 
were. Defoe bitterly reproached the bishops and Church 
clergy for having flattered James II. with assurances of his 
unlimited power, and thus led him on to the brink of ruin, 
and then overthrown him. When William III. landed, the 
whole Anglican clergy, in mockery of its own teachings, went 
over to the usurper, and only 400 Nonjurors had so much of 
conscience as to refuse the new oath. 

James II. had been mistaken in his calculation; for the 
attachment to Protestantism was then deeply rooted in the 
feelings of the great majority of the people. All parties, 
Calvinists as well as Anglicans, were united in their fear of, 
and aversion to, the Catholic religion, or what was repre- 
sented to them as inseparably connected with it — political 
and ecclesiastical despotism, persecution, Smithfield fires, 
subjection under a foreign Italian prince, or, as the zealots 
said, “the Romish Antichrist,” and a drain of English gold to- — 
wards Rome! All these terrific phantoms hovered before 
the English fancy, in connection with the words “ Catholic 
Church.” That it was precisely the Catholic period in 
England which had been that of increasing civil freedom, 


the Inquisition. The preacher was compelled to revoke his assertion 
from the very pulpit where he had made it, and declare that ‘‘ kings had 
over their subjects no other power than such as was afforded by Divine 
and human law; and by no means any power proceeding only from their 
own free and absolute will.” This is reported by ANToNIO PEREz in his 
Relations. —‘ Université Cath.,” xxii. 76. 

1A rich fund’ of material concerning this matter, so important to 
England, is contained in the work of an unknown person (Abr. Seller). 
—‘‘ History of Passive Obedience since the Reformation.” Amsterdam 
(London), 1689. 

2 Edinburgh Review,” vol. lv., pp. 832-34. See there the answer of 
James II. to Burnet’s Remonstrances. 

3 Witson’s ‘ Life of Defoe,” i. 160. 


12 


116 PROTESTANT SUCCESSION SECURED. 


and that of the Reformation the time of slavery, absolutism, 
and the loss of individual rights, perhaps not one in a 
thousand of the English knew, and that one took good care 
to say nothing concerning it. It is doing no injustice to 
James II. to say that, as a true Stuart, and as an admirer 
of Louis XIV., he did aim at absolute power, and would have 
used the Church of England, when restored to Catholicity, 
as a serviceable implement to this end. 

The short reign of James, and the preceding years of fear as 
to what he might attempt, served to give a powerful impulse to 
Protestantism, and occasioned an approximation, though cer- 
tainly only a transitory one, amongst all Protestant sects and 
parties. Even the toleration offered by James was rejected 
by them, with the exception of the Quakers. He had offered 
it, persons supposed, merely for the sake of procuring a more 
tolerable position in the country for his hated fellow-believers. 
With the fall of James II. and the Stuart dynasty, and the 
elevation of William III., the Protestant succession was 
secured, and the movement which had begun with the 
Reformation completed as to its main features. The most 

important acquisition of recent times was the Habeas Corpus 
' Act, the guarantee of personal freedom against arbitrary 
power, which passed in 1679, under Charles II., and where- 
with the rights secured by the ancient Magna Charta were 
thus then confirmed and secured against the ambiguous inter- 
pretations of Crown lawyers.! The “ birth-rights,” or funda- 
mental rights, of the English nation, as it was expressed when 
William ascended the throne in 1689, contained, with the 
exception of the limitation of the succession to the Crown, 
only the ancient rights and franchises. ‘Two powers, how- 
ever, or rather one power regarded in two different points of 
view, were for ever destroyed—these were an arbitrary 
monarchy, and the royal supremacy over the State Church. 
William himself was not able, even by the threat of an abdi- 
cation, to overcome the opposition of the Parliament; and 
since his death, and the accession of the Hanoverian dynasty, 
no King of England has ever been able to govern in his own. 


' Hariam’s “ Constitutional History.” London, 1882, iii. 17. 


ECCLESIASTICAL SUPREMACY OF THE CROWN, 117 


person.! The kings of this dynasty continued to be strangers, 
unloved by the nation. And whilst the monarchy withdrew 
from the eyes of the nation into the background, and lost 
more and more of its dignity, the power and authority of 
Parliaments were considerably on the increase; and during 
nearly sixty years the administration of the Whig party, the 
political centre of gravity, was moved entirely into the Lower 
House. 

With this enfeeblement of the monarchical element in 
England, the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Crown could not 
but gradually receive a different interpretation, and produce 
different results. Queen Anne had, in 1707, declared her 
supremacy to be a fundamental element of the constitution 
of the Church of England;? and George I., who, shortly 
before, had been a Lutheran, issued, as early as 1714, certain 
ordinances concerning things connected with the liturgy, that 
went very much into detail. But the political advantage 
and importance of the supremacy now fell to the Prime 
Minister for the time being, and ecclesiastical patronage was 
used in the interests of the Whig party, and as a means of 
gaining over the more powerful families, and obtaining their 
influence in the elections and in Parliament; but the Church, 


1 It may be objected that George III., from his accession to the dissolu- 
tion of the Cabinet under Lord North (1761-1782), exercised great influ- 
ence on the course of Government and the decision of political questions, 
and that by means of a party formed outside the Cabinet, and in opposition 
to it. But that was an abnormal, unnatural state, which awakened great 
discontent in the nation, as BurKke has shown in his ‘“‘ Thoughts on the 
Causes of the Present Discontent.” (Works, London, 1834, i. 127, &c.) 
‘« The power of the Crown,” he says, ‘‘ ‘almost dead and rotten as pre- 
rogative,’ has grown up anew, with much more strength and far less 
odium, under the name of influence.” He then goes on to describe this 
plan as a system of favouritism, the invention of a double Cabinet, &c. 
It was exercised through the corruption of a great number of the 
members of the Lower House, to which purpose a portion of the Civil 
List was applied. The matter proves, in the most striking manner, that 
henceforward there was to be no such thing as a legitimate exercise of 
personal power on the part of the king. 

2 See Wixrins’s ‘‘ Concilia Britannie,” iv. 685. 

3 Davip Lewis, p. 41. 


118 ERASTIANISM. 


in which Jacobite and Tory tendencies prevailed, was robbed 
even of what had remained to it of the power of free move- 
ment, and for this purpose the royal supremacy did excellent 
service.- The Convocations were no longer allowed to meet; 
and the Church was more and more temporalized, and 
degraded into an institution for the advantage of the sons and 
cousins of influential families. 

As soon as the Constitution of the Estates of England 
entered into its new Stadium of Parliamentary government, 
that which was formerly called in England Frastianism, 
namely, the control and depression of the Church, and 
“turning it to account” by the laity, became a regular prac- 
tice, as if belonging to the natural order of things. The 
Government has had since then greater power over the 
Church, and in the Church, than in the State, both in 
theory and in practice.! If ever a statesman employed this 
supremacy for the good of the Church, it was a mere lucky 
accident. 

Since the Nonconformists, or Dissenters, were friends of 
the Hanoverian dynasty, and of the Whig party, the govern- 
ment, which was glad of their support, set aside the restraint 
under which they had lain in Anne’s reign, though this 
certainly was only effected by an Indemnity Act yearly re- 
newed ; still it granted them access to public affairs, whilst 
the State Church was not only unable to make any agores- 
sion on the Dissenters, but was incapable of protecting itself 
against heterodoxy and infidelity in its own bosom. The 
penal laws remained in force against the Catholics alone. 

Thus there was presented in England the remarkable 
phenomenon of one State (since Scotland had become by 
the Union a province of the British Empire), with two 
entirely different and mutually hostile State Churches—a 
Calvinistic Presbyterian in the North, and an Episcopal 
Church in the South; and further, the English Church, 
deprived of all power of free action, lay bound and helplessly 
dependent on the State; whilst all the sects and religious 
societies that had arisen, or were to arise out of it, whatever 

* PRETYMAN, ‘“‘ The Church of England and Erastianism,” p. 215. 


Oy a ee Ce ee Te ee ee ren 


ts RESULT OF ECCLESIASTICAL STRUGGLES. 119 


their doctrines or institutions might be, could govern them- 
selves in perfect autonomy and freedom. An Englishman 
thinks this quite in the regular order of things! 

The supremacy is, according to Hallam, who expresses the 
prevalent view on the subject, the dog’s collar which the 
State puts on the Church that it has endowed, in return for 
food and shelter.! 

If we now ask what has been gained in almost one hundred 
years of an embittered struggle between parties and Churches? 
—what can be shown as the actual result?—it appears to 
amount, in the first place, to this: that religious freedom, or 

rather the liberty of not belonging to the State Church, but 
of forming an independent community, has been won after 
a contest of about a hundred and seventy years, and after 
thousands of Englishmen have lost their lives; and this, too, 
has been won in direct contradiction to the original principles 
of Protestantism. 

Secondly, the civil liberties that the English possessed 
in Catholic times, had been essentially enervated, and in 
some cases destroyed, by the Reformation and the spirit of 
State-Churchship. They had primarily to be reconquered, 
and then confirmed and extended, in the sanguinary war 
which the partisans of the sects, in alliance with the political 
champions of freedom, carried on against the monarchy and 
the dependent State Church. In so far as all these sects 
proceeded from the principle of the Reformation, and all 
called themselves Protestant, it may be said that Protestant- 
ism in England, after having been, in its first form, the most 
dangerous enemy and destroyer of civil freedom, did, in all 
subsequent forms, or through the consequences of Church 
dismemberment involved in it, contribute to the re-establish- 
ment and extension of political liberty. Every one of these 
Protestant communities oppressed every other when it could, 
or was prepared and resolved to do so; every one wished to 
lay on the nation the yoke of its own views and institutions. 
The Presbyterians, Prynne and Edwards, as soon as their 


1“ Constitutional History of England,” iii. 444. ‘‘ The supremacy of 
the Legislature is like the collar of the watch-dog,” &c., &c. 


120 DEMOCRATIC TENDENCIES. 


sect had obtained a momentary pre-eminence, endeavoured 
to prove that the authorities were entitled and bound to 
wield the sword against all erroneous doctrines—that is to say, 
against all that were not Calvinistic.' Ultimately, all 
religious parties came forth from the long contest weakened 
and shaken. The Presbyterians disappeared in England, 
and were replaced by other sects. The State Church had 
become so powerless; there was such an uncertainty in all its 
doctrines, and such a dissolution of all ecclesiastical bonds had 
taken place within it, that even bishops declared the English 
clergy to be the worst in all Europe; and in the eighteenth 
century England was distinguished above all other nations 
for its general contempt of the Church, and a wide-spread 
infidelity, even among the female sex. 

The fall of James II., and the summoning of a new 
dynasty, did not, in fact, bring any accession to English 
popular liberty, for such had been, as to all essential par- 
ticulars, already won; but it brought with it two changes, 
pregnant with important consequences, viz: the degradation 
of the monarchy into a mere powerless phantom, and the 
system of parliamentary government by majorities of the 
lower house, whose views and aims had to be modified by 
the limitation or extension of the suffrage. Upon the value 
of these two acquisitions the future must decide. 

Since the passing of the Reform Bill, England has been 
treading a downward path; and, upon the question whether 
it can be arrested in its decline—whether it is in a position 
to recoil from the increasingly democratic tendencies of the 
House of Commons and of the constitution—will depend the 
future prospects of this kingdom, and, to a certain extent, 
of the world also. 

On the whole, it appears, as a fitting inference from the do- 
mestic history of each country, that wherever the Reformation 
produced one united State Church, it acted prejudicially on 
civil liberty ; that such States retrograded on the political 
path in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; and that it is 


‘See the expressions of Burnet, Lady Mary Wortley, and others, in 
the ‘‘ Quarterly Review,” vol. ccli., p. 462. 


THE CHURCH AND CIVIL LIBERTY. 121 


only where Protestantism did not attain to absolute supre- 
macy, in the form of a State Church, but where a considerable 
portion of the population remained Catholic, while another 
formed various religious communities, that there arose, from 
the collisions and limitations thereby occasioned, a greater 
measure both of civil and political freedom, 


122 


THE CHURCHES WITHOUT THE PAPACY— 
A PANORAMIC SURVEY. 


IF we wish to understand all that must stand or fall with 
the Papal See, and how inextricably interwoven it is with 
the innermost being of the Church, we must cast a glance 
upon those religious bodies which have separated themselves 
from Rome, or have arranged their constitution so as to 
have no place for a Primate. I here, then, enter so much 
the more willingly on a survey of the Churches, since it is 
my object to make clear the condition of the present time, 
with respect to ecclesiastical affairs; and I also do so because 
such a survey is indispensable for a comprehension of the 
question concerning the States of the Church. 


THE CHURCH OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 


We will begin with the oldest of the dismembered Churches, 
the Oriental, or “ Orthodox Anatolian Church,” which 
recognises the Patriarch of Constantinople as its head. It 
embraced, formerly, all the countries of the Greek Empire, 
but has been for some time past continually crumbling away, 
by ecclesiastical resistance to, and separation from it of 
particular portions. The separations have been based on 
the antagonism of various nationalities, and on the decay of 
the Turkish Empire, which, in the day of its power, upheld, 





THE ORTHODOX ANATOLIAN CHURCH. 123 


for the sake of its own interest, the authority of the 
Patriarch. The Hellenic Church, that of the kingdom of 
Greece, has declared itself independent; the Metropolitan 
of Carlowitz, in Austria, with his eleven bishops, has done 
the same, and his Church is now an independent Patriarchate. 
The Churches of Cyprus, of Montenegro, and of Mount 
Sinai, have declared their independence. In the Danubian 
Principalities a similar attempt has been made to form an 
independent Romaic Church. Almost all the organs of the 
press there demand a solemn declaration of the independence 
of the “ Moldavo-Wallachian Church,” and the formation of 
a Moldavo-Wallachian Synod. A separation of the Bul- 
garians has taken place, but they have joined the Catholics. 
That the Ionian Islands have not gained the Hellenic 
Church, but still acknowledge the Patriarch as their eccle- 
siastical head, is probably to be ascribed to English influence 
or compulsion.! 

The Patriarch, whose sway still extends over about nine 
millions of persons, has in some respects more than a Papal 
power. He can appoint or remove, on his own irresponsible 
authority, all archbishops, bishops, and priests, and, with ex- 
ception of four prelates belonging to the standing synod, can 
relegate them all to their dioceses. He possesses at the same 
time an extensive civil jurisdiction, the right of punishment, 
and an unlimited power of taxation. His whole administra- 
tion has now been for hundreds of years connected with an 
unexampled system of extortion, corruption, and simony. 
Every Patriarch attains by these means to his dignity. Ac- 
cording to long-established precedent, the patriarch is usually 
changed every two or three years; he is, namely (the custom 
originates in Turkish despotism and Greek corruption), de- 
posed by the synod, for bad administration, or he is com- 
pelled to resign. 

Thecases in whicha Patriarch dies in possession of his dignity 
are extremely rare, for those who make a profit by bargains for 
the patriarchate take care that they shall be transacted as often 


1 In Roumelia and the Herzegovina, separations from the Patriarchate 
are expected.‘ Neue Evang. Kirch.-Zeitung von Messner,” 1860, p. 400. 


124 THE PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 


as possible.! When the Patriarch has purchased the dignity 
of his deposed predecessor for hard cash, he gets his money 
back again by the sale of archbishoprics and bishoprics, and the 
purchasers of these, in their turn, make amends by extortions on 
the inferior clergy and the people. The most important part in 
these intrigues and bargainings about the patriarchate is played 
by a temporal official, the Logothetes, who at the same time, as 
an ecclesiastical dignitary for the patriarch, stands by the side 
of the executive and mediates between him and the Porte. 
Only a year ago the Patriarch Kyrillos was deposed on 
account of simony and waste of the patriarchal finances, and, 
after a regular election contest, Joachim, Bishop of Cyzikus, 
was chosen in his place. The clergy attached to Greek na- 
tionality have been hitherto the instruments by whose means 
the Turks have ruled over not only the Greek, but also the 
Sclavonian population of the empire, and in so doing exercise 
a despotic power that the Sclavonians are more and more 
revolting against. The eight dignitaries of the Synod (they 
bear the name of metropolitan, but six of their number are 
mere villages), are the ruling powers, in subordination to the 
patriarch, but when united against him are more powerful 
than he can be. The temporal power that has been com- 
mitted or left to the Greek-Church-princes is a source of 
innumerable outrages, and the means of enriching immode- 
rately their families, as well as those upon whom they feel 
themselves to be dependent. 

The great Sclavonian party, relying on “the Hatti-Hu- 
mayun” of the Turkish monarch, and in alliance with a 
portion of the Greek laity, is endeavouring to break through 
these ecclesiastical and political fetters. The Greek oli- 
garchy, however—namely, the seven first prelates of the 
Synod, in union with the national Hellenic party, which dreads 
the Sclavonic preponderance — is ever contending against 
them, and a struggle for life or death is carried on, in which 
national hostility, strengthened by indignation at a state of 

1 ErcuMann, “ Die Reformen des Osmanischen Reiches.” Berlin, 1858, 


p- 27-28.—Prrzirios, ‘‘ L’Eglise Orientale,” Rome, 1825, ii. 82.— 
GELZER’s “‘ Monatsbliitter,” vii. 224. 


CORRUPTION AND IGNORANCE OF THE CLERGY. 125 


things so intolerably corrupt, leaves apparently no room for 
reconciliation. Thus the patriarchate of Constantinople has 
already entered on the stage of approaching dissolution, 
The three other patriarchates, which, according to the Anato- 
lian schismatic theory, exercise, in conjunction with that of 
Constantinople, the supreme authority in matters of faith, are 
scarcely more than titular dignitaries, for the patriarchate of 
Alexandria has but 5,000, that of Antioch 50,000, and of 
Jerusalem 25,000 souls. The Patriarch of Jerusalem has 
his regular summer residence on the Prince’s Island, near the 
capital; and the two others reside, with his permission and 
that of the Synod, in the capital itself. 

The Greek Patriarchate is in the most shameful and pe- 
rishing condition to which an ancient and venerable Church 
has ever yet been reduced; but that does not prevent the 
youngest prophet of Slavism, which is to be called to the 
dominion of the world, from founding on that See the most 
splendid hopes. ‘ When the Turkish dominion is destroyed,” 
says Pogodin, “the Patriarchate of Constantinople will arise 
again in all its glory, and the Church of the East will again 
attain its world-wide importance. Then” (according to Po- 
godin) “ will the worn-out West be rejuvenated, namely, by 
the Slave and his Church, for all the future belongs to the 
Sclavonic race.”! 

This Church certainly lies under the most pressing neces- 
sity of reforming itself and of becoming re-vivified; for 
simony in its widest sense, veniality, corruption of the clergy 
both high and low, the employment of all imaginable means, 
both religious and superstitious, for the extortion of gifts— 
all these features of the Byzantine Church system have been 
authenticated by all observers. To this must be added the 
gross ignorance of the clergy, the majority of whom in many 
districts cannot write, and sometimes not even read. Las- 
karato, the author of a work that appeared in 1856, on the 
state of Cephalonia, declares, in his letters to the archbishop 
of that place, that it might happen to any one to dismiss a 
servant one day for misconduct, and meet him on the mor- 


1 “ Politische Briefe aus Russland.” Leipsic, 1860, p. 17. 


126 DEVOTION TO THE CIVIL POWER. 


row as a priest; people that you have known as petty 
chandlers, day labourers, or boatmen, you may see in a few 
days appear on the altar or in the pulpit.! 

~ Devotion to the civil power is so completely the lot of all 
special churches that have been rent away from the one uni- 
versal World-Church, that the Greeks will even acknowledge 
their Turkish ruler as a supreme judge in ecclesiastical ques- 
tions. As incredible as this appears, it has been stated in the 
most decided terms, and in the most official form, in quite 
recent times. Pius IX., in his evangelical letter to the pre- 
lates of the East, in the year 1848, reminded them of their 
want of religious unity; and thereupon the Patriarch an- 
swered, in his own name and that of his Synod, “In disputed 
or difficult questions, the three Patriarchs discuss the matter 
with the Patriarch of Constantinople, because that city is 
the seat of empire, and because he is the president of the 
Synod. If they cannot agree the affair is, according to 
ancient precedent and usage, referred for decision to the head 
of the (Turkish) Government.”2 The Greek who makes 
known this communication, mentions also a case in which a 
decision was really given. The Armenian clergy had a dis- 
pute with the Greek priests concerning the custom of mixing 
water with the sacramental wine; and the dispute was finally 
brought before the Turkish Reis-Effendi, who accordingly 
gave his decision. ‘ Wine is an impure drink, condemned 
by the Koran; pure water only, therefore, should be made 
use of.” 

And yet it is undeniable that a splendid prospect lies 
before the Church of the Turkish Empire, if it should be 
able to raise itself only in some measure from its present 
degraded condition, and to comprehend the greatness of its 
mission. For the days of the Turkish dominion are num- 
bered. Not only can the Empire not continue in its present 


1 Td pvornpia tig Kepadoviac, 1856. This work entailed on its author 
the punishment of excommunication. 

? AvayyéAXNerar TO wpaypa Kai eig Thy Aviknow card ra kaGeoréira. 
Prrzrrios, 1. ¢. 1., 140. 


DEGRADATION OF THE TURK. 127 


form, but the power of Mohammedanism in Europe must 
also fall. The Turks will be compelled to emigrate and 
to return to Asia, or they will die out—and in fact they are 
actually dying out at the present moment. The Christians 
are already four times more numerous than the Turks, and 
the latter already begin to fear that if the Hatti-Humayun 
were truly and honestly carried out, they (the Turks) would 
within five years’ time be driven across the Bosphorus. They 
themselves are absolutely unimprovable and stationary: the 
hatred of every kind of reform is as much an article of faith 
with them as the hatred of all non-Mahommedans. Their 
polygamy, their frequent divorces, the seclusion and unna- 
tural mode of life of their women, the criminal methods 
employed to prevent the increase of families, the want of an 
aristocracy, as well as of a genuine middle class—their entire 
social position, as a slothful, parasitical race, living on the 
impoverishment and plunder of the Christian population—all 
these things make the elevation of the Turkish race an im- 
possibility. 

They themselves are filled with the idea that their time is 
coming to anend. They are continually declining in num- 
bers, in morals, in courage, and in hope.! Their slothfulness 
nourishes their fatalism ; and, again, their fatalism serves as a 
pretext to their slothfulness, and disinclination to every kind 
of exertion. The Christian stands towards the Turk in the 


1“ All is dying around the Christian populations,” says RaouL DE 
MALHERHE (‘ L’Orient.,” 1718-1845. ‘‘ Histoire, Politique, Religion, 
Moeurs.” Paris, 1846, ii. 157.), ‘‘ All is perishing, under that hard law of 
fatalism—all is becoming extinguished in polygamy, vice, and debauchery ; 
beyond these the East has no other prospect than depopulation and the 
desert.” See also the communications of so excellent an observer as 
Nassau W. Senror, in his ‘‘ Journal kept in Turkey and Greece.” 
London, 1859, pp. 28, 32, 147, 212. The British Consul, Mr. Finn, 
lately said, ‘‘ The Mohammedan population of Syria is dying out, and I 
cannot even say that it is dying slowly.”—‘“ Allg. Zeitung,” 1861, p. 
1144; 11th March.—‘‘Even Asia Minor, which, in 350 years, the 
Turks have changed from a rich and prosperous country into a desert, 
shows the same phenomenon. A Pacha himself reports that, in his 
Pachalik, the deaths exceeded the births by six per cent.”—Srnior, 
p. 183. 


128 DECAY OF MOHAMMEDANISM. 


same relation as if a living man were bound to a corpse; but 
the Christians are evidently increasing in numbers, in pros- 
perity, in intelligence, and in courage. The Turks them- 
selves say that it will soon be necessary to fill all offices with 
Christians; and then some day the ministers will say to the 
Sultan that he must become a Christian, and—so it will 
happen.! The future belongs, then, to Christianity, and not 
to Islam; and the same thing is true of a great part of Asia, 
for the Persian Empire also is in a state of hopeless internal 
distraction, and the population is very thin and constantly 
decreasing. At the beginning of the present century it was 
estimated at twelve millions, it is now said not to exceed 
eight. Almost all Persian cities, with the exception of 
Tabris, Teheran, and Schiras, are in ruins,’ and must fall 
more and more under the Russian dominion. Moham- 
medanism also, though it has in recent times made some pro- 
gress among the Malays of Borneo and the negroes of 
Soudan and Madagascar,’ has, on the whole, entered into the 
stage of decay, and must fall back whenever the superior 
energy of the Christian nations advances against it. Apart 
from the question of truth, Islam bears within itself the 
germ of dissolution, since it is a religion of fixed definite 
precepts, embracing every department of life, and in their 
nature destructive of all progress. As the production of an 
individual nation, and of a decidedly low degree of culture, 
it could not, when transferred to other nationalities, be other- 
wise than injurious and inadequate, and must ultimately fall 
before the internal contradictions it occasions, and the neces- 
sities of life; whilst Christianity, as a religion of ideas, and 
of an institution adapted to the whole world, and limited 
neither by time nor locality, is capable of doing justice to 
every really human requirement—of promoting and encourag- 
ing the onward progress of the human race.‘ 


1“ Diary in Turkish and Greek Waters,” by the Eart oF CARLISLE. 
London, 1864, p. 78. 

2 Allo, Zeitung,” 1st March, 1857, p. 956. 

 ‘ Rdinburgh Review,” vol. c. (1854), p. 412. 

‘This contrast of the two religions has lately been noticed by a very 


CONSTITUTION OF THE GREEK CHURCH. 129 


THE HELLENIC CHURCH, 


The Church of the Kingdom of Greece has dissolved its 
connection with the Patriarch and Synod of Constantinople. 
On the motion of thirty-five bishops assembled in Nauplia, 
the Regency, in the year 1833, declared the “ Orthodox 
Oriental Church of Hellas” independent of every foreign 
authority. The government of the Church is to be vested 
in a Synod, consisting of five ecclesiastical members, to be 
appointed by the king, and two laymen, of whom one is to 
be the Attorney-General (Staats Procurator). A Concordat 
had been previously agreed upon (the Zomos), by which 
greater freedom had been granted to the Church with respect 
to the constitution of the Synods. The Government, how- 
ever, altered this arrangement, and arrogated to itself the 
right of appointing the members, in accordance with the pre- 
cedent given by Russia. In fact, the whole new Constitution 
was an imitation of the Russian; whilst the remarkable pro- 
vision, that the members of the Synods should only be 
appointed by the State authorities for a year at a time, went 
far beyond the Russian model. But the Patriarch of Byzan- 
tium nevertheless, in the year 1850, acknowledged this 
peculiar kind of Church constitution, merely with the reserva- 
tion of certain acts of homage. 

The clergy of the newly constituted Church are taken 
from the lowest classes of the people, and are so parsimoni- 
ously paid that they are obliged to carry on some mechanical 
trade or rural occupation in addition to their priestly func- 
tions. They are mostly men utterly uneducated, and have 
no influence whatever amongst the cultivated classes, 
amongst whom a species of Voltairianism has made great 
progress.! In the powerful, and, in fact, wonderful intel- 


acute observer, the Count D’Escayrac DE LAUTURE, in ‘‘ Le Désert 
et le Soudan.” Paris, 1853, p. 185. The remarks made by him were 
the result of his close attention to the condition of the Mohammedan 
population. The author is the person who, a short time since, was taken 
prisoner by the Chinese, and frightfully mutilated. 
1 W. Senior, ‘‘ Journal kept in Turkey and Greece.” London, 1859, 
K 


130 THE RUSSIAN CHURCH. 


lectual movement that has taken place of late years among 
the Greeks, the clergy have not participated. An attachment 
to the National Church, a preference for the peculiarities of 
the Anatolian doctrine and rites are found, to some extent, 
among the Greeks, but such attachment is more political 
than religious. The ecclesiastical peculiarities were regarded 
as the bulwarks of Greek nationality, as things connected 
with the great superiority of the Hellenes over other nations. 

For this Church of Hellas, also, there is a hopeful prospect ; 
because, in proportion as the kingdom extends—of which, in 
the rapid decay of the Turkish Empire, there is every likeli- 
hood—the Church also will be enlarged at the cost of the 
Patriarchal See of Constantinople. The inhabitants of the 
Tonian Islands would doubtless join the Church of Hellas on 
the first opportunity; and Thessaly also, where the Greek 
race is preponderant, desires greatly a union with the kingdom 
of Greece; and the subjects of King Otto look to this event 
with eagerness ;! and no sooner should the incorporation take 
place than the province would certainly separate itself from 
the Patriarchate of Stamboul, and enter the Synodical Church. 
The politico-ecclesiastical hopes of the Hellenes of the king- 
dom, however, are well known to extend much further—even 
to Little Asia. 


THE RUSSIAN CHURCH. 
The Church of the great European-Asiatic Empire, if we 


p- 330.—GEtzEr’s ‘‘ Monatsbliitter,” vii. 251. The author of the Essays 
called ‘‘ The Cross and the Crescent,” in the latter publication mentions 
(vii. 226) that he visited a great number of bishops and metropolitans in 
the islands of the Archipelago, in Asia Minor, and in Syria, and some- 
times enjoyed their hospitality ; and that in conversation with them he 
frequently alluded to the religious apathy of the people, whose worship 
appeared to him as if they were rather troublesome ceremonies of polite- 
ness, in which the heart had no share. 'The answer he got was, ‘‘ What 
can we do? Howcan we think of devoting ourselves to quiet study and 
the instruction of others, when we have our own wives and children to 
provide for, and are scarcely able to procure the means of existence?” 
1 Senior, p. 35, 


THE PATRIARCH. 131 


include the sects of which the State does not recognize the 
existence, numbers more than fifty millions of persons, and 
is also a daughter of the Byzantine; and though, towards the 
end of the sixteenth century, it declared itself separate from 
the Patriarchate, it has retained, with perfect fidelity, the 
Church system, with its doctrines and ritual, as it was 
received from Byzantium. According to theory, it recognizes 
in matters of faith the four Anatolian Patriarchs as a supreme 
authority; and if the decision of a point of doctrine is in 
question, it is laid before them, that is to say, in fact before 
the Patriarch of Constantinople, with his Synod—for the three 
others no longer represent any great ecclesiastical body, but 
are merely titular, and must be regarded as members of the 
higher Byzantine clergy. The Catholic Church passes for 
heretical, on account of the doctrine of the procession of the 
Holy Ghost; and even in Russia for heretical and for schis- 
matic, on account of the claims of the Papal See. But with 
respect to the third point of difference, the intermediate state 
after death, it would be easy to come to an understanding. 
It is only put forward when there is a desire to multiply the 
pretexts for separation, and to widen the chasm. 

The Russian Church has been, since the separation from 
the Patriarchate of Constantinople (1587), a completely iso- 
lated National Church, without any connection with the rest 
of the Christian world. At its head stood the Patriarch, 
resident at Kiev, who was the Metropolitan for all Raia, 
and, in power, almost the equal of the Czar—for the Church 
was still independent, and represented the rights of the 
people, in opposition to the imperial power, and that of the 
Boyars—so that the remonstrances of the Patriarchs were 
almost equivalent to a veto. Peter I., who was early initi- 
ated, by his Genevese tutor, into Bentantans views, and who 
was determined to get the mighty influence of the Church 
into his own hands, abolished the Patriarchal dignity, because 
‘the people would otherwise think more of the Chief Pastor 
than of the Chief Ruler,” and appointed (1721) a “ Holy 
Synod,” appointed by himself—a permanent Council, in the 
eyes of the Bishops, and an Upper Consistory, in the Pro- 

K 2 


132 IMPERIAL STATE CHURCHSHIP. 


testant sense, in the eyes of the Czar. When the clergy 
petitioned for the re-appointment of a Patriarch, Peter 
replied, angrily striking his breast—“ Here is your Patri- 
arch.”! This overthrow of the ancient ecclesiastical consti- 
tution was acknowledged by the Patriarch Jeremiah of 
Constantinople. “The Synod appointed by the Czar Peter,” 
he declared, “is, and is to be called, our brother in Christ.” 
It has the power to transact and to decree, like the four 
sacred Apostolic Patriarchal Sees.* 

These Synods, with their permanent Procurator, taken 
from the laity (and occasionally from the army), form a kind of 
State Council and Ecclesiastical Tribunal, an administrative 
machine for the Church, which is placed by the State on a 
level with other administrative authorities. Being in itself 
a body without a soul, it receives the principle of life from 
the Czar, through the Procurator, without whose signature 
none of its proceedings are valid, and none of its words have 
any power. It cannot even itself appoint its secretary and 
subordinate officials ; but they are all nominated and displaced 
by the Czar. It subsists only by the will of the Emperor, 
and merely to fulfil his commands. 

On the whole Russian religious system, therefore, is im- 
pressed the stamp of Imperial State Churchship. The entire 
property of the Church was attached by Catherine II. to the 
estates of the Crown, in order, as it was said, to relieve the 
clergy from the burden of their administration.2 The Church 
bears this supremacy as a yoke that has been laid upon it; but 
it bears the burden willingly—it undeniably serves the State as 
a political instrument, and assists in confirming the absolute 
power of the Czar. The slightest movement towards inde- 
pendence in the Bishops, leads to threats of imprisonment 
and exile; and although the three Metropolitans of Peters- 
burg, Kiev, and Moscow, are permanent members of the 
governing Synod, the latter, when he on one occasion pre- 


1 Hermann’s ‘ Geschichte des Russ. Staats,” iv. 350. 

* MurawiEw’s “Geschichte der Russischen Kirche.” Carlsruhe, 
1857, p. 252. 

* DoteorouKow’s “La Vérité sur la Russie.” Paris, 1860, p. 344. 


ARCHIEPISCOPAL POWER OF THE CZAR. 133 


sumed to differ in opinion from the Emperor Nicholas, was 
immediately dismissed to his diocese, by which he was 
prevented from taking any further part in the proceedings 
of the Synod.! 

Notwithstanding this, the Protestant idea, that the sove- — 
reign, as such, must be the chief Bishop or head of the 
National Church, is really foreign to the Russians, and to 
the Sclavonic nation in general. A_ religious Russian 
would not admit, even now, that the Czar was the head of 
his Church, or that it belonged to his office to decide 
on questions concerning faith and doctrine, divine service, 
and the Sacraments. In fact, no Czar has ever taken on 
himself to do, what, in Protestant countries, is regarded as 
among the ordinary, and, what may be called, the normal 
proceedings of the government—to make enactments con- 
cerning faith and divine service, or impose any changes on 
the Church. 

What, however, the Russian Czar, with all his power, 
declines to do, with respect to his own Church, that he 
arrogates to himself, according to the Protestant system, 
with respect to the Lutheran Church of the Baltic provinces.? 
This archiepiscopal power, too, has even been exercised in a 
somewhat hostile spirit, not only by the extension of the laws 
concerning mixed marriages to the Protestant provinces, 
according to which all the children of such marriages belong 
to the Russian Church,’ but also by prohibiting Protestant 
clergymen from baptizing heathens, Jews, and Moham- 
medans. Authority in dogmatic or liturgical questions has 
never been ascribed to the Emperor in his own Church, but 
he has assumed it over that of the Protestants, for the Edict 


1 DoLeorovuKow, p. 343. 

? By a Rescript of the year 1817. Hrnastrensere’s “ Kirchen- 
Zeitung,” vol. xxxi., pp. 569-567. 

* Concerning the consequences that have already resulted, see ‘t Russ- 
land und die Gegenwart.” Leipsig, 1851, i. 163; and HENGsTENBERG, 
‘ K.-Zeitung,” i., p. 575.—Both witnesses maintain that, by this law, the 
Protestant Church of those countries must gradually pass into the 
Russian-Greek Church. 


134 THE RUSSIAN CLERGY. 


of 1817 commands the General Consistory to refer all such 
matters to the Czar. , 


There is, therefore, no question of an Imperial Papacy or’ 


Caliphate in Russia; but, nevertheless, in the “ Order of 
Succession,” which the Emperor Paul read aloud in the 
Cathedral at Moscow, and then laid on the altar, the Emperor 
is styled the “ Head of the Church.” In the Book of Laws 
he is called merely the “ Divinely annointed Protector” of 
the Church of God; and at his coronation he is treated as 
the “first-born son” of the Church. Prince Dolgoroukow 
remarks that the Emperor Nicholas never regarded himself 
as head of the Church, though he certainly acted as if he 
was;! and, as a matter of fact, the Church of Russia is more 
completely in the power of the monarch than any other 
religious community in the Christian world. 

It is wanting, to a degree, of which there is scarcely 
another example in Christian history, in every capacity of 
free action. There are no Councils, no conferences of the 
clergy, no co-operation of the clergy and their parishioners, 
no centre of ecclesiastical knowledge and culture, no exchange 
of views through literary organs, or an ecclesiastical literature. 
No such things exist in Russia, nor may they exist; and 
thence it follows that there is in the Church no such thing 
as public opinion or public feeling; and it cannot be said 
that the Russian clergy have before them any purpose clearly 
defined or recognised, or even instinctively felt, or that it has 
any indwelling organic life. The Bishop and his clergy are 
separated by a broad and impassable chasm. The Bishop is 
mostly an aged monk, who, after a life passed in his cell, in total 
ignorance of temporal affairs and administrative business, 
sees himself suddenly elevated by the Imperial will to an 
Episcopal throne, the choice being made with special refer- 
ence to personal qualifications—a lofty stature, a majestic 
beard, a generally imposing appearance. He has two main 
duties: first, devotion to the Emperor, and unconditional 
obedience to his will; and, secondly, a watchful attention to 
the pomp of liturgical ceremonies. The serious business, 

1“ La Vérité sur la Russie.” Paris, 1860, p. 341. 


——I—I a 


THE SECULAR CLERGY. 135 


and the cares of Catholic Bishops, are unknown to him; for 
these the Bishop leaves, partly to the Imperial Synod (since 
the Emperor has withdrawn from the Episcopacy the greater 
part of its spiritual power and jurisdiction), and partly to 
the Consistories, which are notorious for their venality and 
simony. Among the Bishops themselves there is no hierar- 
chical organization, no internal connection, and no reciprocal 
action. All these the Czars have annihilated; and thus the 
Russian Church is found in glaring contradiction to a 
fundamental law acknowledged by itself — namely, the 33d 
Apostolic Canon, by which “every national Church is to 
recognise one bishop as its first and its head.” The secular 
clergy, who are mostly the sons of clergymen—for the clergy 
here form an hereditary class—have usually, even before the 
time of their ordination—that is, from their early youth—to 
maintain in a church that the Czars have robbed of its 
property, a constant struggle against poverty and destitu- 
tion. They are mostly married to priests’ daughters, and 
the fathers of a numerous progeny, and they have to till 
their fields with their own hands: they are in general, as 
may be supposed, extremely ignorant—indeed, are merely 
taught to read and to sing, and but too often addicted to the 
national vice of drunkenness. They are entirely defenceless 
against the bishops, who sometimes treat them like slaves; 
they cringe before them with trembling humility; and as it is 
impossible for them to live with their families on the income 
allowed them by the Church, they are compelled to descend 
to the most supple pliancy of demeanour, both towards those 
above them (their Bishops and patrons), as well as towards 
the people below them.! 

The Russian Church is a dumb one: there is no singing 
by the congregation, and there is no sermon—only occasion- 
ally, and especially on Imperial féte-days, does the Pope or 
Bishop say a few words, to impress on the people the duty 
and great merit of unconditional obedience towards the 
Czar, and to point out that they cannot better show their 


1 See the description given by an eye-witness in the ‘‘ Correspondant,” 
vol. xxii. (1826), p. 316. 


136 THE MONASTIC ORDERS. 


love to God than by a faithful subjection to the Imperial will.! 
Amid such a want of all instruction and of spiritual renova- 
tion (for there are neither prayer-books nor ascetic writings 
in the hands of the people), the individual remains com- 
pletely confined within the circle of his own thoughts, and 
there are no remedies against the overwhelming mass of 
superstition which cannot fail to be engendered by a purely 
ceremonial religion in the absence of doctrine and of the 
living Word. 

Spiritual culture, and even a smattering of theological 
knowledge, can only be found in the monasteries, and with a 
few monks. Very unfavourable opinions are, nevertheless, 
given of the monastic orders: “ They are,” says Dolgoroukow, 
“idle and demoralized, and, with the exception of the 
Bureaucracy, the most mischievous class of men in Russia. 
At the same time, the secular priest stands so much lower in 
the social scale, and in public opinion, that he can, if he 
pleases, again become a layman, or be, by degradation, restored 
to the laity, and may then even be placed in the ranks as a 
soldier.” ? 

The Russian is, however, unconditionally devoted to his 
Church; it is for him the firm citadel of his nationality, in 
which, and through which, he feels himself invincible; and 
the Slavonian Liturgy, which so completely expresses the 
manners and the tendencies of the people, gives to the clergy 

‘ Intelligent Russians now acknowledge that it is a perverse practice, 
in their Church, to make marriage compulsory on the clergy, and to 
admit no man to ordination who is living in celibacy. See upon the sub- 
ject DoLcorovuKow, p.350. The difficulty is not to be got rid of, as the 
Prince thinks, by leaving them free on this point—for a married clergy, 
and one living in voluntary celibacy, could not well subsist together. 
The former would sink too low in public opinion by the contrast: the 
confidence—and, as a natural consequence, the contributions—of the people 
would be bestowed upon the latter. In the appointments to livings, 
the parishes would certainly petition for a wifeless pastor, that is, if 
they were allowed to express their wishes. There have been, very lately, 
complaints from Galicia, of the injurious consequences that have followed 
from the compulsory early marriages of the Greek clergy there.—See 
‘* Kleine Beytriige zii grossen Fragen in Oesterreich.” Leipsig, 1860, p- 81. 

* L£éouzon LE Doo, p. 224, et seq. 





EXTENSION OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH. 1357 


a great power over their minds. The Russian is far from 
feeling that moral indignation at the low moral state of his 
“Popes,” which to the Germanic and Romanic nations made 
the corruption of their clergy ultimately intolerable.’ 

The Russians believe in themselves, and in a great futurity 
for themselves, and this confidence especially applies to their 
Church. The extension of their empire and of their Church 
are jointly regarded as great national objects; and as their 
Church stands alone in the world, the government can 
always stamp every war as a religious one—as, indeed, 
Nicholas, in the recent great war,actually did. All who are not 
Russians are, in accordance with the opinion officially incul- 
cated on the people, either heterodox or infidels. According 
to this view, an Appeal of the Holy Directing Synod of 
Petersburg summoned the people, in 1855, to devote their 
lives and fortunes to the cause of their country and their 
holy religion. And the proclamation of the year 1848 
closed with the words, “Hear, ye heathens, and humble 
yourselves, for God is with us!” 

Russia is, for the people, the “oly Land”-—Moscow, the 
“ Holy City” —the monarch, the “ Holy Czar”—God is the 
“Russian God.” In the prayers of the Church supplication 
is made for the extension of the dominion of the Czar and of 
the orthodox Church on earth, and many a Russian hopes to 
see the day when the Greek cross will be planted on St. 
Peter’s at Rome. The Government only acts in accordance 
with the spirit of the nation when it meditates preparing 
the other nations of the same confession, Greeks and South 
Slavonians, for the reception at some period into the 
Russian Imperial and ecclesiastical body. Before all things, 


? The Russian author of the work called ‘‘ Vom anderen Ufer” (Ham- 
burg, 1850), p. 167, says, indeed, of the Russian peasant, ‘‘ He despises 
the clergy as slothful, covetous fellows, who live at his cost, and in all 
street ballads and popular ribaldry, the priest, the deacon, and their 
wives, are always brought in as examples of the absurd and the despic- 
able.” Even if that should be the case, yet that the clergy occasionally 
exercise great power over the country people would not be contra- 
dictory to the fact, but would rather afford a psychological explanation 
of it. 


138 _ IDEAL OF SLAVONIAN EMPIRE. 


however, the Russians look longingly towards Constantinople 
—the Emperor-city (Zargrad), as they call it. They be- 
lieve that God has given them a right to possess that city 
—the mother of their Church—and that they are to have 
the church of Saint Sophia. It is their mission to restore 
this great church of Anatolian Christianity, after its desecra- 
tion into a mosque, once more to its original destination. 

One great Slavonian Empire, extending from Archangel 
to the Adriatic, and, by means of this empire, a dominion 
over the world, which, as the pious say, is to serve for the 
diffusion and the glorification of the orthodox Church—this 
is the ideal that, more or less consciously, hovers before 
every Russian. As early as 1619, in an original document 
of the Holy Synod at Moscow, the Czar is solemnly assured 
of the dominion of the world, and it is promised that there 
shall be continual prayer offered up that “he may be the 
only sovereign over the whole earth!”! It is well known 
how this expectation, and the devotion to the great Pro- 
tector of their Church, has been awakened and cherished 
among the Slavonian populations belonging to the separated 
Anatolian Church. For this purpose are church-books, with 
“obligate” prayers for the orthodox Czar, furnished gra- 
tuitously from Russia, to both priests and parishes, and with 
the same object pecuniary assistance is secretly afforded to 
the clergy. The most insignificant priest in Albania, Corfu, 
Zante, and Cephalonia receives a little yearly income from 
the ecclesiastical treasury at Nischnei-Novgorod.? Even 
amongst the Slavonians of Austria, the Wallachians in 
Hungary and Transylvania, the Russian influence is actively 
maintained.® r 

To plant this Emperor-worship in the minds of the young, 

1 Koprrar, in the ‘t Wiener Jahrb. d. Lit.,” vol. xxviii. p. 247. 

2 * Allg.-Zeitung,” 29th Febr., 1860, p. 983. 

*De Gerronpo, “La Transylvanie,” Paris, 1845, recounts this 
fact: ‘‘ An Hungarian officer pointed to a troop of Wallachian soldiers 
that he commanded, and said, ‘Ces hommes m’aiment, ils m’obéissent 
aveuglement, mais le Pope s’est laissé gagner par les moines Russes ; 


qu’un seul cosaque paraisse a la frontiére, et ils me passeront sur le corps 
pour aller ou le pretre les conduira.’ ” 


IMPERIAL SUPREMACY IN THE CHURCH. 139 


and to cherish and strengthen it in those of the old, is, 
according to their views of the government and the Synod, 
the main business of the Russian clergy. The power of the 
Emperor, according to their catechism, comes immediately 
from God; the veneration due to him must be expressed by 
the most complete submission in words, bearing, and actions; 
the obedience must in every respect be unlimited and 
passive.! 

The police-like character, the mechanical constraint of a 
church system degraded into a mere machine of government, 
strikes the observer everywhere in Russia. Even for con- 
fessions and absolutions a fee is fixed by Imperial ordon- 
nance. Every Russian is bound to confess and communicate 
once a-year, and get a certificate made out for him to that 
effect. Without this confession and communion certificate 
he can neither take an oath nor bear witness. It is required 
for everything, and is, therefore, frequently bought, so that 
a regular trade is carried on in these documents. It is gene- 
rally maintained that priests are instructed to report to the 
governmental authorities anything that may appear of 
political significance from the confessional, and that in 
general they have no scruple in obeying this instruction. 
The Civil Code, “the Swod,” prescribes that people are not to 
change their places in church, and so forth. The Emperor 
reserves to himself the decision concerning divorces, and the 
canonization of saints takes place by Imperial ukase. 

The greater part of the Russian clergy do not, neverthe- 
less, feel the imperial supremacy as a burden and a deformity 
in the Church. They have grown up in this view, and know 
no other—the Bible and the history of the Church are sealed 
books to them; and they feel like the Russian populace, who 
take a pride in the fact that the Czar is the sole lord and 
ruler in the empire, and who find their nationality involved 
in it. “If we were to unite ourselves to Rome,” said a 
Russian priest to a Frenchman a short time ago, “ our 
Emperor would no longer be the sole ruler in his States. He 


1 “ Protest. Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1854, p. 354. 
2% Allg.-Zeitung,” 1858, 12th Decr., p. 5607. 


140 SECTS AND SEPARATIST COMMUNITIES, 


would have to be accountable to a foreign sovereign, and 
that would be humiliating. We cannot understand how you 
Frenchmen, who usually possess a pretty good share of 
national pride, should allow your bishops to receive the con- 
firmation of their appointments from Rome !”! 

Churches are, like individuals, punished by that wherein 
they have sinned. How carefully did this Church cherish 
the bad heritage it had received from the spiritually im- 
poverished Byzantium, a mechanical ritualism ; and how care- 
fully did it exclude itself from every breath of spiritual 
religion and of deeper feeling! How it has allowed its 
clergy to sink into a mass of rude, mindless machines; how 
it has left its people,-without the spiritual nourishment of the 
tidings of salvation, to languish and perish in the dreary. 
monotony of a barren ceremonial and empty religious 
etiquette! Amidst endless crossings and prostrations, and 
genuflexions, the body is kept so hard at work, and so con- 
stantly occupied in the Church, that the mind has not a 
moment for thought.2 Only in Russia could sects arise, 
founded on a difference as to whether the sign of the Cross 
was to be made with two fingers or three, or whether a fast 
was to be kept on Wednesday or Friday, if either of these 
days should happen to be a holiday. Russia is the true 
home of a sect which would consider its salvation endangered 
by a revision of the faulty text of the liturgical books, or by 
a variation of images from the ancient pattern. 

The temporalization of the Church by the supremacy of 
the Czar has, on the whole, had a great part in the forma- 
tion of the numerous sects and Separatist communities, which 
form in Russia an evil not to be remedied by ecclesiastical 
means, and appear to threaten danger to the State, since 
they only need skilful leaders to give them a politically re- 
volutionary direction. On the other hand, however, the 
existence of these sects has been put forward as a reason why 


1 “ Correspondant,” May, 1861, p. 189. 
* See Ltouzon LE Duc’s ‘* La Russie Contemporaine.” Paris, 1854, 
p- 228. 


RUSSIAN SECTS. 141 


the supreme power of the Emperor over the entire ecclesi- 
astical territory must be maintained unaltered.! 

The Raskolnikes, or Apostates, as they are called by the 
State Church, or the Staroverzes (old Believers, as they call 
themselves) are very widely spread among the lower orders. 
They represent old Russia, as it was before Peter I. and 
ostensibly protest against the alterations made in the Church 
books by the Patriarch Nikon, but really also against the 
dominion of the Czar over the Church. This sect is extend- 
ing every year more and more; and, according to a recent 
statement, it has increased, since 1840, from nine millions? 
to thirteen millions. Throughout Siberia, the Ural moun- 
tains, among the Cossack tribes, and in Northern Russia, the 
population belongs chiefly to the Staroverzes. The Govern- 
ment will not consent to tolerate them; but they know how to 
manage with the Government officers;? whilst the bishops and 
Popes of the State Church, who are sent by the Synod to 
Siberia, are regarded very much in the same light as the 
Protestant clergymen of Ireland in purely Catholic districts.‘ 
Through a bishop of their own Church, who, since 1845, has 
taken up his residence in a Galician village, they have been 
arranged into six large dioceses, and have obtained bishops 
and ordained priests of theirown. Besides these Separatists, 
a considerable number of heretical sects have issued from the 
fruitful womb of the State Church. One of the youngest of 
these sects is that of the Molokaner, who profess to be strictly 
Biblical in their faith ; but it is according to an arbitrary and 
mystical interpretation of the Bible. They have already 
spread throughout Russia, and number a million of disciples.° 

To this increasing estrangement of the lower classes may 
be now added the complete indifference of the educated and 
higher orders.° “ There is perhaps no country in the world,” 

1 See the Russian Memorial in ‘‘ The Rambler,” Nov., 1857, p. 313-55. 

? GoLowInE, ‘‘ Autocratie Russe,” Leip., 1860. 

® DoLGorouKow shows (p. 366) what a lucrative branch of income 
the Staroverzes form for the venal police. 

* Messner’s “‘N. Ey. Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1860, p. 367. 


5“ N. Preuss.-Zeitung,” 21st Dec., 1859. 
* “ La Russie—sera-t-elle Catholique?” p. 66, 


142 ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM. 


says Gagarin, “that counts so many Voltairians as Russia.” 

The Russian Church maintains that in its creed and 
administration of the Sacraments, it is completely in har- 
mony with the Church of Constantinople ; but this, in reality, 
is not the case—on the contrary, a very striking difference 
has lately appeared. Both Churches—namely, the Russian 
and the Greek—are accustomed to administer baptism by 
three complete immersions; whilst the Catholic Church and 
the Protestants (Baptists excepted) content themselves with 
pouring water on the head of a person to be baptized; or, as 
in England and elsewhere, with a mere sprinkling of water. 
The form of baptism, by pouring on the head, was declared 
by the Greek Church, ina Synod assembled at Constantinople 
in the year 1484, and with consent of the four Patriarchs, to 
be effectual; and the same thing was done for Russia by a 
mixed Synod of Greek and Russian bishops in the year 
1667; but in the year 1756, the Greeks, in a Constitution 
signed by three Patriarchs, overthrew the former decisions,! 
and resolved that, for the future, all proselytes from any one 
of the Western Churches should be immersed. 

This custom has since continued in all the churches belong- 
ing to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and is now de- 
clared by the Hellenic Church to be indispensable. The 
Russian Church, however, with its comprehensive projects 
for obtaining Catholic and Lutheran converts, rightfully 
considered that the necessity for a new baptism might prove 
a stumbling-block to such proselytes, and would, therefore, 
not accept this new decision; so that, in the eyes of the 
Greeks, not only the Russian Empresses, but many of the 
priests, and a considerable number of laymen, are not baptized 
at all. From 150,000 to 180,000 of the latter, for example, 
of Lutherans of the Baltic provinces, who have become 
“orthodox,” and the thousands of converts received every 
year, and for all of whom the anointing with the Chrism 
has been thought sufficient.2 Such a profound difference 

* As a pretext, the incorrect assertion was made, that the Latins bap- 
tized by mere sprinkling paytiopdc. 

* The Patriarch of that time, Cyrillus of Constantinople, approved, 


THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 143 


would certainly, under other circumstances, have led to a 
complete dissolution of ecclesiastical association; but in the 
Turkish East, as well as in Hellas, there are the most press- 
ing reasons for keeping up a good understanding with the 
Czar and the Czar’s Church; and it has therefore been 
resolved, with very cautious “prudence,” to pass over in 
silence the crime of which, according to Anatolian prin- 
ciples, the Russian Church has been guilty, by admitting 
whole troops of unbaptized persons to all Christian rights 
and means of salvation, and by having also allowed the 
whole Church to be ruled by (Catherine II.) an unbaptized 


Empress. 


THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE DISSENTERS. 


The Church of England cannot properly be called a National 
Church, since at least the half—in fact, a much larger number 
—of the population, do not belong to the Anglican Church. 
The Catholics of England (without reckoning Scotland and 
Ireland) amount to a million and a half; the Dissenters of 
various denominations are much more numerous; and there 
is a mass of the poor population, factory workers and others, 
who are, for the most part, attached to no Church at all, 
and about whom the Anglican Church does not trouble 
itself—and partly for this reason, that in its stiff and narrow 
organization, and all want of pastoral elasticity, it feels itself 
powerless against the masses; whilst they, on their side, 
never think of reckoning themselves members of the Church, 
or asking from it any assistance. 

The Anglican, however, is still the State Church; it is 
the only one politically-privileged ; its Bishops sit in Parlia- 
ment, though only in the Upper House—whilst in the Lower 
House, which is the real centre of power and government, 


and made public, in the year 1756, the book of Eusrratrus ARGENTEs, 
=IrnXirevaic rod ‘Paytiopov, which is intended to show that the whole of 
Western Christendom is unbaptized. See also the detailed discussion of 
this subject by Witt1am Patmer, in his “ Dissertations on subjects 


relating to the Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic Communion.” London, 
1853, p. 163-203. 


144 THE CLERGY. 


the Church is only casually represented by some few mem- 
bers, especially regarded as friends of the Church. It 
is most closely connected with the civil power; the King or 
Queen is its head in the fullest sense, and the State provides 
before all things for the Church and its wants. The intel- 
lectual classes belong almost exclusively to the State Church, 
and it scarcely ever happens that a man of eminence pro- 
fesses himself a member of any Dissenting body.! In Eng- 
land the upper ranks of society are in so far religious, that 
scarcely one of them would acknowledge himself an unbe- 
liever, and the majority attend Divine service on a Sunday. 
It is, then, the rich and distinguished who go to Church, the 
poor and low whoremain away. The clergy of the Episcopal 
Church themselves proceed from the higher classes, and are 
by relationship or marriage intimately connected with them; 
it is only very seldom that clergymen of the Church havesprung 
from the lower orders; and whoever does not belong by birth 
and connection to the privileged classes, generally finds the 
door of ecclesiastical preferment closed against him. The 
patronage is mostly in the hands of the nobility and gentry, 
who regard the Church as a means of provision for their 
younger sons, sons-in-law, and cousins. Its patronage partly 
belongs to the Crown, the bishops, and the universities, who 
also usually provide for their own. Besides the rich beneficed 
clergy, however, there is a subordinate poor class of clergy- 
men (an auxiliary clergy), the curates, who perform service 
for the more numerous classes of sinecurists and pluralists, 
and very commonly do this for very slender emoluments. 
The son of a family of the lower order might perhaps attain 
to the position of a curate, but there is no Christian country 
where the poor and humble are so much excluded from the 
higher schools and educational establishments—and thereby 
of course from the Church and the service of the State—as 
in England. 

Nowhere else is the chasm between the rich and the poor 
so great—nowhiere else so little intercourse between these 
classes, so little community of thought and feeling, as in 


' The celebrated chemist, Faraday, seems a rare exception. 


THE CHURCH OF THE ARISTOCRACY. 145 


England. The aristocratically born and educated clergy of 
the State Church belong to the higher orders—they under- 
stand them, and are understood by them—they think and 
feel with them—and from the people they are separated by a 
chasm that their pastoral zeal is seldom able to bridge over.' 
The Anglican Church clergyman does not preach—he reads 
a speech or an essay; he reads the lengthy Sunday liturgy, 
and he visits the boys’ school; but the people are not specially 
fond of these lectures in the churches; and, with the prevail- 
ing system of hired seats and pews, they cannot even find 
room inside the churches. Of the confessional, which, in the 
Catholic, the Greek, and the Russian churches, brings the 
priest into immediate communication with the individual, 
there is of course no question. The liturgy directs indeed 
that the sick man, if he feels confession necessary for the 
easing of his conscience, may resort to it; but no practical 
use is ever made of this permission, since persons who have 
never confessed in their whole lives do not think of it when 
on a sick bed. The English clergyman is therefore a lec- 
turer, and in general nothing more; whilst to the lower classes 
his manners and his modes of expression are strange, unin- 
telligible, and repulsive. 

There is no Church that is so completely and thoroughly 
as the Anglican the product and expression of the wants 
and wishes, the modes of thought and cast of character, not 
of a certain nationality, but of a fragment of a nation, namely, 
the rich, fashionable, and cultivated classes. It is the religion 
of Superdaieiss: of gentility, of clerical reserve. Religion and 
the Church are then required to be, above all things, not 
troublesome, not intrusive, not presuming, not importunate. 
What specially recommends it is its freedom from pretension— 
that it claims no high authority, is no inconvenient disturber 
of the conscience, but keeps within the limits of general 
morality ; and whilst retaining some Christian doctrines, sel- 
dom wounds the hearts of the hearers by an application of 

1 Lytton Buiwer has made some excellent remarks on this ‘ cause 


of weakness in the Established Church” in his “England and the 
English.” Paris, 1833, p. 210. 


L 


146 PECULIAR CHARACTER OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 


them. As to what it once possessed of positive ecclesiastical 
tenets, it has gradually allowed them to become obsolete. It is 
content with taking up just so much space in life as com- 
merce, the enjoyment of riches, and the habitude of a class, 
desirous before all things of “comfort,” may have left to it. 
Of the numerous pious practices by which formerly the lives of 
Englishmen, during their whole course, were attached to the 
Christian faith, there are few that this Church has not broken, 
or allowed to be broken; and the few that remain are those 
which possess the smallest restraining power. The Con- 
fession of sins, Fasting, everything that falls within the limits 
of the ascetic, the average Englishman reckons as “ super- 
stition,” an idea that is for him a very comprehensive one. His 
Church, and it is that for which he specially admires it, requires 
of him nothing “superstitious.” Its insulated character, also, 
its separation from every other Christian community, suits 
the national taste, and is a popular feature of the Anglican 
Church. The Englishman, especially of the higher ranks, 
finds it quite in the proper ordér of things that he should 
have a Church exclusively to himself, in which no other 
nation has any share; a Church, too, which, while it has all 
the accommodating spirit, the reserve, and the exclusiveness 
of Continental Protestantism, on the other assumes, by 
means of its episcopacy and its more liturgical character, 
an aspect of more dignity and importance.’ 

1 It is necessary to have been in England, to see, and to observe, this 
self-complacent feeling with regard to the National Church, before one 
can have anything like an exact idea of its strength, intensity, and 
peculiarity. In Catholic countries the case does not occur; since 
Catholics—except those who live scattered amongst nations of other 
creeds—are little, if at all, aware of the contrast between their own Church 
and that of others. From their youth upwards they have heard only of 
one Universal Church—they have breathed only its air—they have moved 
only within the circle of its ideas—and they know that their nation is 
only one among many—one branch of the great tree of the Church, and 
has no peculiar advantage over any other branch. The English- 
man, on the contrary, has sucked in, with his mother’s milk, the idea of 
an English religion, an English Church, to which all others stand related 
only as degenerate—as bastard Churches—as superstition does to faith 
—and he enjoys the agreeable conviction of belonging to the chosen 


ITS UNACCEPTABILITY TO THE POOR. 147 


The Episcopal State Church has, since the Revolution of 
1688, and especially since 1770, suffered enormous losses. 
In the year 1676, that is, only seventeen years after its re-es- 
tablishment, it was calculated that Catholics and Dissenters 
together only made up a twentieth part of the population. 
At present, at least one-half of the nation is estranged from 
it. What makes it pleasing and acceptable to the higher 
classes repels the lower. They see in the Anglican clergy- 
man only the elegant gentleman, who has no mission to them ; 
he is not a friend, not a messenger of God, and, what is 
worse, he has no fixed doctrine to proclaim to them, for the 
Church he serves has none. What he teaches is only the 
opinions of the party or school to which he belongs, by the 
accidents of birth, of education, or of society. 

It may be conceived that a great part of the people prefer 
belonging to one of the sects which have a definite form of 
doctrine, and leave little or nothing to the whim of a preacher. 

Clergymen of the Established Church assert! that, since the 
Reformation, the Church has never been so much the religion 
of the people, has never been able to win so much of their 
confidence, as their Catholic predecessor. But as the Church 
of the richest country in the world, and of the richest classes 
in that country, it has the disposal of larger pecuniary means 
than any other; and, during the last thirty years, it has 
done more in the way of the restoration of old, and the 


people of a new Church—the modern favourite of the Godhead! It is 
this very Jewish mode of thought that has also found so much satisfac- 
tion in the Jew-like observance of the Sabbath. The one true Church, 
thinks the average Englisliman, is physically and morally an Insular 
Church. Where the firm British soil ceases, and the sea begins, there 
ceases also the firm ground, ecclesiastical—outside of it are the heaving 
billows of superstition, and of false or defective Churches. Admirably, 
and from the very hearts of his countrymen, has the ‘‘ Saturday Review” 
(1859, ii. 104) portrayed this state of feeling. ‘‘ There is no feeling so 
pleasant as the assurance that you are yourself right, and everybody else 
wrong—that your Church and nation are the very perfection of Churches 
and nations—and that, by implication, you are yourself the most perfect 
specimen of both temporal and spiritual society.” 
1“ Christian Remembrancer,” vol. xxvii. (1854), p. 385. 


L2 


148 SPOLIATION OF THE POOR. 


building of handsome new churches, than had previously 
been done in the present century. 

There is little prospect, nevertheless, that it will ever 
succeed in becoming what its Catholic predecessor was, or in 
doing what that effected; that is, of becoming the Church of the 
lower classes and of the poor,and winning both their confidence 
and their attachment. Every one who observes the effects 
that the change of religion has had upon this portion of 
the population, and the relation in which the present Estab- 
lished Church stands with respect to the poor, will admit that, 
as regards both, there can be little room for doubt. 

The depression, detriment, and spoliation of the lower 
classes, have everywhere followed on the revolution- 
ary change called “The Reformation.” In England, the 
robbery of the Catholic Church—the transference of its 
property, in enormous masses, into the hands of the laity 
—left thousands of the poor destitute, and transformed 
thousands of peasant proprietors into helpless paupers. 
Expenditure upon the poor, in Catholic times, ceased at 
the Reformation, with the marriages of the clergy, and the 
enrichment of the nobility, from the property of the Church. 
“In places where formerly twenty pounds sterling were 
given away to the poor every year,” says a contemporary, 
“the poor do not now get so much as a handful of meal.”! 
The churches and monasteries, as well as the parish priests, 
had hitherto chiefly provided for the poor: they had on 
their lands a dense population of farmers and tenants. Leslie 
and Kennett? describe the conduct of the Catholic clergy to 
the poor. They did not, it is said, merely give them alms; 
they procured work for them; they put their children to 
trades and handicrafts; the poor, when they were travelling, 
found shelter in the monasteries and parsonages, and the 
pastors kept lists of the poor, that they might give alms to 
those who most needed them.® 

But by the sudden abolition of the monasteries, and by the 


! SELDEN’s Works, iii. 1339. 
2“ Divine Right of Tithes,” Works, ii. 873. 
* Lease of Impropriations,” 1704, p. 16. 


ORIGIN OF ENGLISH PAUPERISM. 149 


bestowal of the Church and monastic estates on the courtiers 
and nobles, not only were countless numbers of the people 
rendered all at once destitute, but the new proprietors found 
it advantageous to turn fields into pastures, and so depopu- 
late large tracts of land, on which, hitherto, an agricultural 
population had lived under the protection of the Church; 
so that at last “the sheep devoured men.”’! It appears 
(under Edward VI.), says Burnet,’ to have been the general 
intention and plan of the nobility to press down the country 
people into the same state of degradation and slavery in 
which they languished in other countries. Thus, with the 
very first steps that Edward’s government made towards the 
introduction of Calvinism into England, a regular state of 
slavery was established by law. Such pitiless and un- 
Christian severity of legislation as was now adopted (after 
1548) had never, hitherto, been heard of. Idle persons 
—(and for confirmation of the fact of idleness, it was sufficient . 
to show that they had not been at work for three days)— 
as well as vagrant beggars, were to be branded on the breast, 
and to be made slaves—to be fed on nothing but bread and 
water, thrown into irons, put to forced labour, and attempts 
to escape were to be punished with death.* Thus a helpless 

1 This was said in a political work that appeared in 1581. (‘* A Com- 
pendious or Briefe Examination of Certayne Ordinary Complaints,” 
f. 5.”) ‘The sheep are to blame for all this mischief: they have driven 
agriculture from the country,” &c., &c., ap. EDEN, p.115. Harrison’s 
‘“ Description of England,” p. 206, speaks of whole hamlets, or towns, 
that have been pulled down, and the ground turned into pastures. 
Brecon, SANpys, and other reformers, theologians, and Protestant 
bishops, of the time of Edward and Elizabeth, speak of cold covetous- 
ness, and rude, pitiless oppression of the poor, as prevailing characteristics 
of the titled and opulent classes, and confess that in the Catholic times 
they were much more charitable and merciful. Another Protestant 
theologian traces this change to the doctrines of Faith and Justification. 
—Srusses, ‘‘ Motives to Good Works.” London, 1596, p. 42. 

2‘ History of the Reformation,” fol. ed., ii. 114. 

3Sir Frep. M. Epen, “State of the Poor.” London, 1797, i. 
100-101. Pasuury, ‘“ Pauperism and Poor Laws.” London, 1852, p. 
180. This writer calls it ‘‘a statute characterized by a barbarous and 
ruthless severity, wholly unworthy of the legislation of any Christian 
people.” 


150 POOR-RATES. 


- pauper population was first created — for England was not 
. at that time an industrial country ; and its poor were treated 
worse than the beasts of burden. 

Under Elizabeth these laws were renewed, and even boys 
of fourteen or fifteen years old were to be branded if they 
begged for alms.' If they were beyond eighteen, they might, 
on being arrested for the second time, be put to death In 
the year 1597, severe whipping, or condemnation to the 
galleys, was substituted for branding. At the same time, 
however, under Elizabeth, the burden of the poor-rates was 
first imposed, by which free Christian charity was degraded 
into a legal obligation, and a compulsory oppressive tax 
substituted for a willing gift. In more recent times, the 
poor, or workhouses have been added, whose arrangements, 
by the separation of husband and wife, parents and children, 
are completely un-Christian, and even, according to English: 
judgment, in their present state a disgrace to the country,* 
since there is nothing like them to be found throughout the 
rest of Europe. In England—at an expense of six millions 
sterling a-year—this much is attained, that the working 
classes will endure the greatest privation, and live in the 
most disgusting filth, rather than go voluntarily into 
“the workhouse.” It is the Reformation, as it is now ac- 
knowledged, that has brought upon the English people, as its 
permanent consequence, a legally existing and officially 
established pauperism.°> 

By the abolition of the Catholic holidays, and the trans- 
formation of the Christian Sunday into a Jewish Sabbath, 


1 Srowe’s ‘‘ Chronicles of England.” London, 1630, ad. an. 1564, 
1568, 1572. 

2 EDEN, p. 128. 

* See the remarks of the “‘ Edinburgh Review,” vol. xc., 507. ‘ The 
Poor Law,” it is said, ‘poisons the springs of Christian love to our 
neighbour, by making, on the one side an irresistible claim, and on the 
other a tax, from which there is no escape,” &c. At the beginning of 
the last century, Lestie represented the heavy Poor-Rates (ii. 873) as 
a just punishment for having ‘‘ robbed God, the Church, and the poor of - 
their patrimony.” 

* PASHLEY, p. 364. 5“ Dublin Review? xx. 208. 


ABOLITION OF CATHOLIC HOLIDAYS. .~ 151 


a further oppressive yoke has been laid on the poor. All the 
cheering and enlivening Church festivals that had been 
allowed to the people in Catholic times—processions, rustic — 
fétes, pilgrimages, dramatic representations and ceremonies— 
were, as a matter of course, abolished, and nothing remained 
but the sermon, read out of a book—the Liturgy, read out | 
of a book—and with this the grim Calvinistic suppression of 
every social sport, and every public amusement, on the 
Sunday. By these means the whole character of the English 
people was changed.! Formerly known throughout Europe 
as a people full of genial humour—as cheerful “ merry Eng- 
land”—they assumed, after the Reformation, a sullen, dis- 


contented aspect !? 
Music and dancing, once the favourite amusements of the 


1 Literally thus (Lorp Joun Manners in his “ Pleas for National 
Holidays ;” London, 1843, p. 7), ‘‘ The English people, who were of 
yore, famous all over Europe for their love of manly sports and their 
sturdy good humour, have, year after year, been losing that cheerful 
character, and acquiring habits of discontent and moroseness.”- The 
extensive spread of drinking among the lower classes is certainly con- 
nected with this ; and experience everywhere shows that when individuals 
are dissatisfied with their lot, and their lives are gloomy, they become 
disposed to fall into intemperance. It is only after the middle of the 
sixteenth cegtury that this immoderate drinking is mentioned. In the old 
Catholic times the English people were so free from this vice that their 
country was regarded as the most sober of all the northern nations. It 
was entirely changed under Elizabeth, according to the report of two 
contemporaries, the historian CAMDEN (‘* Annals of Queen Elizabeth,” p. 
263), and Bishop Goprrey GoopMAN (‘‘ The Fall of Man;” London, 
1616, p. 366). The military men, who returned home from the wars of 
the Netherlands, are said to have specially contributed to the spread of 
this vice, and the first laws against it were made under James, in 
1606. At present, the working classes of Great Britain drink every 
year, in brandy and spirits, as much as the revenue of the kingdom, 
namely (counting also what is spent on tobacco), more than fifty-three 
millions sterling.—Porter, ‘‘ On the Self-imposed Taxation of the 
Working Classes,” vol. xiii. of the ‘‘ Journal of the Statistical Society.” 

? The English proverb, ‘‘ All work and no play makes Jack a dull 
boy,” is specially true of the working classes in England. They are 
. overburdened with work, and the Church does nothing for them. Lord 
John is perfectly right in designating their general condition as the “ all 
work and no play system.” 


152 . EFFECTS OF PURITANICAL BIGOTRY. 


people, have disappeared. An Englishman of the humbler 
ranks is unmusical, and neither will nor can dance. All the 
enjoyments of life, all the means of making the Puritan mo- 
notony of an English sabbath more tolerable, are reserved to 
the higher classes. To the working classes nothing is left 
but—drink! Since the authority and intervention of the 
Church, which protected all classes equally in the enjoyment 
of their holidays, has been abolished, the people cannot any 
longer allow themselves any time for rest ; for amidst a general 
breathless competition, days of rest—nay, hours of rest— 
would be the forerunners of want, misery, and death. At 
the aspect of such a state of things, even so ardent a Pro- 
testant as Robert Southey could not refrain from casting 
longing glances on Catholic countries like Spain, where re- 
ligion favours and consecrates the innocent pleasures of the 
people. He complained of the Calvinism of his country, 
which, with its gloomy, joyless sanctimoniousness, its Jewish 
observance of the Sabbath, and its suppression of all holidays, 
had crushed down and brutalized the working classes.’ © 

English sovereigns have long recognised this evil. Charles 
I. wished to protect the freedom of the population against 
the Puritanism of the Parliament, but was defeated ; and the 
“keeping holy the Sabbath day” became an effective war- 
ery against the King, who was unfortunate even in his best- 
intended measures.? A hundred years later the first king of 
the House of Hanover had to content himself with the bar- 
ren wish, “that the amusements and games of which his 
people had been deprived by Puritanical bigotry, and pre- 
sumptuous latitudinarianism, might be restored to them.”* 
But to do anything effectual in this direction is for the ex- 
isting shadow of monarchy impossible.‘ 

Down ‘to the time of the’ Reformation, there were in 
almost every parish in England several chapels and oratories, 


' Espriella’s ‘‘ Letters.” London, 1814, p. 147. 

? J. D’Israr.i’s ‘‘ Commentaries on the Life of Charles I.” London, 
1839, ii. 29. - 

* Lorp Jonn Manners, p. 21. ' 

* See, amongst others, PoLWHELE’s ‘‘ Letter to the Bishop of Exeter.” 
Truro, 1833, p. 23. 


THE POOR EXCLUDED FROM THE CHURCHES. 153 


which were doubly desirable for the poorer classes and the 
country people, in a land were there were few actual villages, 
but so many of the rural population lived in scattered farms 
and cottages, and the parish church was at a great distance 
from a considerable part of the congregation. All these 
chapels and religious places Protestantism has destroyed, and 
left no more than the parish church. 

But even this was not thought enough. The church is 
the house of the poor, in which—if it is anything more than 
a lecture-room—they feel themselves happy, for this reason, 
that they find there what is wanting in their confined and 
mostly cheerless homes—the adornment of pictures; symbols; 
—ainple space; the solemn influence of architectural beauty 
and proportion; tranquillity and silence inspiring devotion; 
an atmosphere and the example of prayer. Protestantism has 
not only robbed the churches it permitted to remain of every 
ornament, but it has even locked and bolted them up, so 
that during the week no one can pay a visit to the church. 

Before the Reformation no closed pews were allowed in the 
churches; the space belonged to the whole congregation, and 
high and low were mingled together when they prayed.! 
With Protestantism, however, pews, or boxes, obtained an 
entrance—pews furnished with all comforts, in which the rich 
and great can remain completely apart and separated from 
the common people. ' 

Thus all things have combined together to exclude the 
poor from the Churches of England, or induce them volun- 
tarily to keep away: the listless form of a service consisting 
almost wholly of readings; the space taken up by the pews of 
the rich, the feelings of the humbler as to the wretchedness 
of their attire’by the side of the elegant costumes of the 
opulent ; and then—the widening separation and estrangement 
between these different classes. 

To the Dissenting sects the utterly poor cannot turn, since 
these sects are supported entirely by the payments of their 
members; and the consequence is, that the masses have sunk . 

1 This is remarked by Bishop Kennett in his ‘t Parochial Antiquities,” 
new ed., by Bandford. Oxford, 1818, ii. 282. 


154 POVERTY AND DEPRAVITY. 


into such a state of complete religious and moral barbarism, that 
a “numerous nation.of heathens” has grown up in the country,’ 
or rather, according to the confession of one of the bishops, 
something worse than heathenism, for a fierce hatred against 
the Christian faith rages in many parts of England.’ According 
to a statistical statement, only a fifth part of the population 
of London, and that even of the opulent classes, goes to 
church. “The poor,” says one of the city missionaries, ‘ ab- 
sent themselves almost wholly from religious worship.”? He 
found that in the parish of Clerkenwell, containing 50,000 
souls, only one in fifty goes occasionally to church.‘ The 
consequences have not failed to follow; Worsley, a clergy- 
man of the Established Church, maintains that among the 
poor in the manufacturing towns the last remains of modesty 
between the sexes have almost disappeared ; and, what is still 
more significant, that even in the country villages chastity 
and continence have almost entirely disappeared from among 
the labouring classes.° 

Along with the churches the schools also were abstracted 


1 An expression of Pusey’s, in his sermon, ‘Christ the Source and 
Rule of Christian Love,” pp. 5, 11. 

2“ Charge of the Bishop of Exeter,” p. 56. German observers also 
certify to this fact. ‘‘ The poor in England find no other way of avoid- 
ing complete religious and moral destitution than that of going to Rome. 
It is not, alas! to be doubted, that the great majority of the poor who, 
in the widest extent of the word, may be called the mass of the lower 
orders of the people, have passed away without having had any part in 
its moral and religious life.”—B. A. Huser, ‘‘ Hengstenberg Kirchen- 
Zeitung,” 1858, p. 345. 

* VanDER Kiste, ‘‘ Notes and Narrations of a Six Years’ Mission, 
principally among the Dens of, London,” 1853. Hevsays, (p. 14), 
‘* Heathenism is the poor man’s religion in the metropolis.” 

* According to the Census of 1851, it appears, that if we take the 
number of persons capable of attending Church at fifty-eight per cent. 
of the population, six and a half millions belong to the Established 
Church, six millions to the Free communities, Catholics and Dissenters, 
and five and a half millions to no Church at all. In the towns the num- 
ber of Established Church people is less than that of the Dissenters, and 
in Wales and Monmouth not one third of the population belongs to the 
Established Church. 

5“ Prize Essay on Juvenile Depravity.” London, p. 68-82. 


EXCLUSION OF THE POOR FROM SCHOOLS. 155 


from the poor. In the year 1563, the Speaker of the Lower 
House declared that, in consequence of the robbery and 
plundering of the foundations at the Reformation, the edu- 
cation of youth had been prevented, and a fresh supply of 
teachers cut off. That there were a hundred less schools now 
than had formerly existed, and that many of those that re- 
mained were very poorly attended. This was the cause of a 
glaring diminution in the number of learned men.' Several 
grammar-schools were afterwards founded, but the poor were 
excluded from these also, and the case was. the same at the 
two universities. Among the numerous colleges several had 
been founded in Catholic times expressly for poor students, 
but after the Reformation these also were made aristocratic. 

Even an organ of the Established Church cannot help con- 
fessing, in the face of these facts, that the Reformation in its 
results was, without doubt, a triumph of the rich over the 
poor, and of money over the rights of labour.? 

The laws from the time of the three Tudors, Henry, Ed- 
ward, and Elizabeth, declare the supremacy over the Church 
to be an inalienable prerogative of the Crown. These 
statutes still exist in full force. The king or the reigning 
queen is in possession of the Church ecclesiastical power, and 
that of the bishops is only an emanation of the royal autho- 
rity. The wearer of the crown is consequently in one re- 
spect the most unfree person in his dominions; for if he were 
to enter into communion with the Papal See, become a Ca- 
tholic, or even take a Catholic wife, he would thereby incur 
an abdication or loss of his throne. According to the statute 
of 1689, the nation would be in that case released from the 
oath of fealty and allegiance? -At the same time, he must 

‘ Cottrer’s “ Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain,” ii. 480; also 
Hatiam’s ‘ Introduction to the Literature of Europe,” ii. 39, Paris ed., 
mentions the poverty and insignificance of English literature in the time 
of Elizabeth, and remarks that Spain, at that time, stood higher than 
England in this respect. 

2 “ British Critic,” vol. xxxiii., p. 419. 

* See upon this the remarks of Pusry in ‘‘ Patience and Confidence the 
Strength of the Church.” Oxford, 1841, p. 30. He cites the words of 


the statute: “‘ The people are, in such case, absolved from their allegi- 
ance.” 


156 THE STATE CHURCH A CREATION OF THIS WORLD. 


be, in fact, by turns the religious head of two Churches, and’ 
of two opposite, and sometimes mutually hostile religions ; 
for in Scotland, Presbyterian Calvinistic Protestantism is the 
Established Church. 

The present Queen, therefore, is accustomed to be in win- 
ter an English Episcopalian, and in summer a Scotch Pres- 
byterian; in winter she attends the Anglican Liturgy, and 
has the sacrament administered to her by the hand of a 
bishop, or an Episcopally ordained clergyman—and during her 
summer residence in Balmoral, or any other part of Scotland, 
she hears a Calvinistic sermon, and receives the Communion 
from a clergyman who would not in England be admitted to 
a pulpit of the Establishment, and that a great part of the 
clergy and laity would not regard as a regularly ordained 
clergyman. 

Besides the Ministers and the Parliament, “the Privy 
Council,” since 1833, exercises a supremacy over religion 
and the Church. It was appointed by Parliament to be the 
Supreme Court of Appeal in ecclesiastical disputes, whether 
concerning doctrine or discipline, and consists wholly or 
chiefly of laymen, who are in part not even members of the 
Established Church. 

A ministerial daily paper, the “Globe,” published, a few 
years ago, a declaration upon the nature and position of the 
National Church, which even Bishop Wilberforce, of Oxford, 
publicly adduced as the expression of the views of the 
Government. “The State Church, by law established,” it is 
stated, “is, in fact, a creation of this world; it is a machine 
for the employment of the spiritual element in the variable 
public opinion of the day. Its government ‘is managed 
by the Prime Minister; its characteristics are passive 
immobility, persevering silence, an absolute nullity in its 
censures—and, then, the thousands of its declared adherents, 
who laugh aloud, whenever its ministers overstep their 
humble sphere, as officers of a national institution—all these 
things are signs and tokens of a servitude which the lowest 
sect of Jumpers would not subject itself to, but which, 
in our department of public worship, is both natural and 
appropriate.” 


THE BISHOPS. 157 


When, about the same time, a desire for a certain inde- 
pendent Synodical action arose, the “Times” said—It ought 
to be considered that this Church, to which the Parliament 
had given its present form, “ possesses every attribute, every 
advantage, and every disadvantage of a compromise. Her 
Articles and authorised formularies are so drawn as to 
admit within her pale persons differing as widely as it is 
possible for the professors of the Christian religion to differ 
from each other. Unity was neither sought nor obtained ; 
but comprehension was aimed at and accomplished. There- 
fore we have within the Church of England persons differing 
not merely in their particular tenets, but in the rule and 
ground of their belief—the one party seeking religion in the 
Bible, with the help of the Spirit, the other in the Church, 
by the means of tradition. The same power of freely meet- 
ing and deliberating, of discussing and altering, which is 
essential to the existence of a voluntary Church, is destruc- 
tive to a compromise entered into and carried out under the 
sanction and authority of the state.”! 

The Bishops are, on the whole, powerless concerning 
doctrine and discipline ; and, for fear of a long and expensive 
lawsuit, they seldom venture to proceed against a beneficed 
clergyman. They have greater power over the curates, 
who, also, are mostly very poor; whilst Cathedral institutions 
have no place in the organization of the Church, and consist 
of sinecures. The numerous Ecclesiastical Courts have also 
a crowd of sinecure places attached to them. Of the 11,728 
benefices of England and Wales, the Crown has the disposal 
of only 1,144, and private persons, 6,092, which they may 
give away by mere favour, without any conditions concerning 
examination to be passed, or years of service. The Bishops 
dispose of 1853 livings, with the widest opening for nepotism, 
which has become proverbial among them. Plurality, or 
the simultaneous possession of several benefices, and the 
consequent inevitable absenteeism, although somewhat re- 
strained by recent enactments, is still of frequent occur- 


1 “Times,” 5th August, 1852. The article may also be seen in the 
“‘ Christian Remembrancer,” vol. xxiv., p. 382. 


158 MERCANTILE SPIRIT OF THE CHURCH. 


rence. In Jreland, in the year 1834, out of 1385 church 
livings, 157 had no divine service, and 339 no resident cler- 
gyman. 

Thus, according to the confession of serious and conscien- 
tious men in the English Church, it is an intensely worldly 
institution, The ecclesiastical offices have been, for 150 
years, disposed of by the civil power, chiefly according to 
political views, and regarded and treated according to their 
lucrative value. The Bishoprics, and other rich preferments, 
have been employed to procure for the ministry the support 
of influential families. At present they are chiefly bestowed 
on men of the Evangelical party, as these are most agreeable 
to powerful dissenters, and to great numbers of similarly- 
disposed Anglicans of the middle class. The designation of 
a church benefice as a living is very characteristic. It is 
regarded entirely as a piece of private property—as a mere 
ware, that may be bought, and sold, and bargained for, as 
one pleases. The most open simony is an everyday occur- 
rence in England, and meets with no remonstrance on the 
part of the Bishops. It creates no surprise when the next 
presentation to a living is publicly offered for sale; and it 
is quite usual for a father to buy for one of his sons a 
commission in the army; and for the other, the next presen- 
tation to a church living.! And yet, every clergyman, upon 
entering on his living, has to take an oath that he has not 
obtained it through simony! A thoroughly mercantile spirit 
has taken possession of this part of the Church system. The 
office of preacher to a church or chapel, built on speculation, is 
publicly advertised, with the remark, that a free and complete 
“preaching of the Gospel (that is, according to the con- 
venient Calvinistic doctrine of Justification) is expected.” 
Not unfrequently clergymen offer themselves, and mention 
their recommendations—their powerful voice, their impressive 
manner, their pure Protestant principles, or their attachment 
to the “ moderate and liberal” views of the Establishment.’ 


1 “ British Critic,” vol. xxx., p. 281. 
? A great number of such tenders of their services are to be found in 
the ‘‘ Ecclesiastical Gazette.” 


THE PURCHASE OF LIVINGS. 159 


Others profess “ decidedly Evangelical principles,” and 
very generally “extreme religious views are disclaimed,” and 
moderation and sobriety announced. Others, again, state 
that they have “ Anglo-Catholic principles,” or an agreement 
with the theologians of the seventeenth century. 

There is probably no Church journal in the world in which 
there is so much talk of “views,” and such a choice of opinions 
to suit every taste, as the publication in which the clergy of 
the Established Church, so to speak, sit in the market, and 
offer themselves for hire. In a country like England, one 
would suppose that nothing would be more intolerable to the 
freeborn Briton, usually so great a stickler for his rights, 
than the state of so many congregations—the being obliged 
to allow themselves to be sold to the first purchaser who 
may present himself. “ There is nothing,” said the “Times” 
lately, “to prevent any one from going into the market, 
and buying a living for any silly, fanatical, extravagant, or 
incapable booby of a son, and installing him forthwith as the 
spiritual mediator between the Almighty and one or two 
thousand of his creatures.”' And yet there has never yet 
been, as far as’ I know, any agitation against this enor- 
mous abuse, which can hardly be equalled out of Tur- 
key. 

The inextricable contradiction between the 39 Articles, 
which are essentially Calvinistic, and the strongly Catho- 
licized Liturgy, originated in the circumstance of the age of 
the Reformation. The Articles were to be the dogmatic 
fetters, binding the clergy to Calvinism, and were only laid 
before them for signature.. But the Liturgy, with its prayers 
and sacramental forms, was intended to prove to the people, 
who were still more Catholic than Protestant, and who had 
to be threatened with pecuniary fines before they would 
attend the service, that their religion had not been essen- 
tially altered, and that the old Catholic Church. still really 
existed.? 

Lhe Anglican Church is, therefore, distinguished from all 


' See ‘‘ Weekly Register,” May 11th, 1861. 
? This must be openly admitted even on the Protestant side.—See 





160 CONTRADICTIONS IN DOCTRINE. 


other Protestant Churches in this, that they possess in their 
symbolic books at least the possibility of unity of doctrine, 
and a corresponding ecclesiastical life—as, for example, the 
Lutherans, by keeping seriously and closely to their Concor- 
dian-Book, might effect a unity of life and doctrine, provided 
they got rid of theology. But the English Church has the 
germ of discord and ecclesiastical dissolution in its normal 
condition, and in its Confessions of Faith. It is a collection 
of heterogeneous theological propositions, tied together by 
the Act of Uniformity ; but which, in a logical mind, cannot 
exist by the side of one another, and whose effect upon the 
English Churchman is, that he finds himself involved in con- 
tinual contradictions and disingenuousness, and can only 
escape the painful consciousness by sophistical reasoning. 
Each of the two great parties in the Church cast on each 
other an aspersion of hypocrisy and disingenuousness, with 
equal right: for the one cannot sign the Calvinistic articles 
with inward conviction; and the others can only accept the li- 
turgy,to which they have an antipathy, for the sake of the bene- 
fices they receive, and are obliged to wrest the meaning of 
liturgical forms in the most violent manner. Many feel the 
contradiction involved in the rule that the doctrinal articles 
are to be binding on the conscience, whilst there is no 
authority to be found that might guarantee the truth of 
these articles. No such authority is, in fact, recognised. One 
of the articles declares, indeed, that the Church has authority 
in matters of faith, but no one is able to say what and 
where this Church is, It cannot be the English State- 
Church, for this has no organ, and, since the. Reformation, 
has never had one; unless, indeed, it be the political supre- 
macy of the prime minister for the time being, and his privy- 
. council of laymen. 
The present distracted state of the Established Church, in 


Witt. Goopr’s “ Defence of the thirty-nine Articles.” London, 1848, 
p- 10.—The ‘“ Christian Remembrancer” (vol. xvi., p. 472) thinks, in- 
deed, that Mr. Goode has herein manifested an extremely presumptuous 
contempt of the Church, of which he is the servant. But the matter is 
familiar to every reader of history. 


RISE OF THE EVANGELICAL PARTY. 161 


which there are not so many various Schools, as parties with 
extremely various and contradictory views, is the consequence 
of the measures adopted at the Reformation, and of its 
subsequent historical course. The old contrast between 
genuine Protestant, and old Church or Catholic views, has 
manifested itself from time to time, under various forms, in 
the bosom of the Church itself. 

After the Revolution of 1688, arose that class of theologians 
and clergymen who were the forerunners of rationalism—the 
so-called Latitudinarians. Archbishop Wake said, in 1710, 
that “the English Church was only preserved from destruc- 
tion by her hands being bound (by the civil power), so that 
she could not destroy herself.”! 

During the long period of perfect languor and indifference 
which followed, the contrast between the two parties died 
away. ‘Towards the end of the last century, there arose the 
elder Evangelical school; and through its means, and the 
struggle with Methodism, some symptoms of life began to 
re-appear in the hitherto benumbed limbs of the English 
Church. This was a re-action against the spiritless mecha- 
nism and the half-veiled infidelity of the English Church; 
a religious movement proceeding from the re-awakened 
Calvinism of the Church doctrine, which had been so long 
dormant. To this earlier generation of Evangelicals, the 
English owe the abolition of slavery, and the establishment 
of several useful societies, which are still, in fact, financially 
prosperous. But the present race of Evangelicals may, in 
comparison with the former, be called a declining one. As 
the party is at present constituted, it represents within the 
Established Church, continental Protestantism, but without 
any Lutheran feature ; on the contrary, with a prepondera- 
ting Calvinism—for example, it has the Calvinist feature of 
a degradation of the sacraments into mere symbols. Its 
favourite doctrine, and most effective instrument, is the 
dogma of “Justification by imputation,” which is so popular - 
in England and America; and, when proclaimed with fluent 
oratory, fills both chapels and churches. This party is 

1 Catamy’s “ Life of Baxter,” i. 405. 
M 


162 THEIR CHARACTERISTICS. 


mostly deficient in university culture, and there is no question 
of theological science among its adherents; their literature 
consists almost wholly of sermons and writings “ for edifica- 
tion;” they also occupy themselves and their hearers much 
with Apocalyptic and Chiliastic theories and prophecies; 
with “the approaching fall of the Man of Sin,” and “ the 
Beast,” or with “the discovery of the ten lost tribes,” and so 
forth. A narrow understanding, a defective education, and un- 
acquaintance with the world are, according to Arnold’s defini- 
tion, the signs of an Evangelical. The party is internally 
much nearer to the Methodists, the Congregationalists, and 
Baptists, than to the High Church and the “ Tractarians,” 
whom they fervently hate, though both belong to the same 
Church. 

Since this party is entirely deficient in everything that 
could be called theology, it is hard to say how the various 
fractions into which it has now fallen are to be distinguished 
one from another. Besides the characteristics above-men- 
tioned, their most prominent features are the rejection of the 
whole body of Church tradition—the denial of the visible 
Church as a divine institution—the treatment of the Bible 
according to a theory of literal inspiration which would make 
every theology impossible—the transformation of the Chris- 
tian Sunday into a Jewish Sabbath, and in accordance with 
which the lower classes of the people are prohibited from all 
recreation, and even children are forbidden to laugh and play. 
The sacramental system is, in their eyes, only Popery in 
disguise. Of the decided Calvinist Record-party, Cony- 
beare! says, “ The religion of many of its members seems to 
consist only of love to the Jews, and hatred of the Papists.” 
On the whole, the Evangelicals may be regarded as sons 
and descendants of the old Puritans, but without their deep 
earnestness, or their hatred against the Episcopal constitu- 
tion of the Church; which, indeed, in the absence of all 
authority, is but the shadow of a Hierarchical order. In 
the year 1660, when matters came to a rupture between the 

1 Tn his description of the English Church parties in the “ Edinburgh 
Review,” vol. xcviii. p. 274, et seq. 


THE ANGLICAN OR HIGH CHURCH PARTY. 163 


Puritans and the Episcopalians, the present Evangelicals 
would have left the Church, or been driven from it. It is 
at bottom only the Liturgy—the Prayer Book—to which they 
submit, though unwillingly. They scornfully call their 
opponents “ Prayer-Book clergymen,” but the State supre- 
macy they are not willing to part with, especially since the 
government has bestowed many bishoprics on men of their 
school.! 


The true Anglicans, or High-Church men, take a middle 
position between the Evangelicals and Tractarians. They 
reject, as a rule, the Protestant doctrine of Justification, and 
the Calvinistic degradation of baptism to aceremony. They 
value the professed apostolic succession of the Anglican 
episcopacy—they maintain the existence of a Church 
endowed with doctrinal authority; but they defend them- 
selves against every logical conclusion that must be drawn 
from such premises. The English Established Church is 
not only in their eyes the only true one, but it is the purest, 
the best constituted, the most free from all exaggerations. 
They are really the best sons and the truest representatives 
of this Church, and are most content with its existing state; 
and since, also, they are by no means exacting in their claims 
on the Christian lives of their congregations, they are 
much in favour with those classes which give the tone to 
society. That they should form so considerable a part of 
the English clergy, is only explicable with a nation to whose 
peculiarities it belongs, that, even according to the judgment 


1 What motives often determine a clergyman to join the party of the 
Evangelicals, and how much their teaching is in favour with the circles of 
the rich and fashionable world, is strikingly exhibited in the ‘‘ Tales by a 
Barrister.” London, 1844, iii. 174-183. The clergyman, above all 
things, finds that the Anglo-Saxon School requires too much devotion to 
the Church, and provides too little for the interest and personal import- 
ance of the individual. He remarks that the position of the ‘“‘ Evan- 
gelical” preacher is a far more favourable one. And then the doctrine 
is so admirably adapted to the taste of the polite world. Such consolatory 
views of the utter depravity of our nature !—such sweet assurance deduced 
from the tranquillizing doctrines of Election and Grace! &c., &c. 


M 2 


164 TRACTARIANISM. 


of Englishmen themselves, they do not see the logical con- 
sequences of their own doctrines.!. As these Anglicans 
formerly found the continual profanation of the Lord’s 
Supper, in consequence of the Test Act, to be quite a 
matter of course; so they now feel no repugnance at the 
Burial Service ;? and the clergy of the Established Church, 
Evangelicals, and High-Church men, are certainly the 
only clergy in the world who “give every deceased person 
to the grave,” let him have lived how he may—let him be 
even a Catholic or a Dissenter—in the “sure and certain hope 
of a blessed resurrection.” There can hardly be a more 
distinct declaration that, after all, belonging to the Church, 
taking part in her services, and using her means of salvation, 
can be a matter of no consequence. 

Public opinion has borne so much the harder for this 
reason on the Tractarians. This school arose thirty years 
ago at Oxford, chiefly in the view of awakening the Church 
from its lethargic slumber, when its safety seemed endan- 
gered by the suppression of ten Irish bishoprics; and it then 
attempted to revive the theology and the Church prin- 
ciples of the Carolan age (that is, from 1625 to 1680), and 
to inspire them with new vigour. But the experience of a 
few years rendered it evident that the re-establishment of a 


1 The peculiar incapacity of the English mind for perceiving the 
sequence of doctrine,” is the observation of the ‘‘ Christian Remem- 
brancer,” vol. xxxvi., p. 247. 

* And yet I find that in the year 1852, 4000 clergymen did present 
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, a remonstrance against the compulsory 
use of the ‘‘ Burial Service.” The Archbishop, with a number of his 
bishops, considered the matter ; but decided that every attempt at an 
alteration would meet with insuperable difficulties.—‘‘ Christian Remem- 
brancer,” vol. xxiv., p. 254. 

* Every Dissenter who is to be buried in a parish graveyard must 
be committed to the grave with the Church Service, and by an Estab- 
lished Church clergyman : that is to say, he must, as the phrase is, return 
at his death into the bosom of the Established Church. In the April of 
the present year, Sir M. Peto moved, in the Lower House, ‘ That Dis- 
senters be allowed to bury their dead in the parish churchyards, accord- 
ing to the forms of their own confessional ritual,’ but the bill was thrown 
out by a majority of eighty-one’ —“‘ Allg.-Zeitung,” May 1, 1861, p. 1976. 


RECOGNITION OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. 165 


theological and ecclesiastical position that had long since 
passed away was a sheer impossibility, and that the frag- 
ments of a system which, in the seventeenth century, was a 
mere arbitrary one, intended to meet a peculiar condition of 
circumstances, could not be made to suffice for the nine- 
teenth. Men still believed, indeed, and not without reason, 
that in the Prayer Book they possessed a memorial and a 
guarantee of old-church, anti-Protestant views; but the 
greater part of the members of the Established Church had 
come to a tacit agreement to regard these things as a mere 
dead letter. The originators of the movement, and the men 
of most note, of the same way of thinking, entered the 
Catholic Church; whilst many others, when they were made 
aware, by this event, of the consequences of their own prin- 
ciples, turned back, and, from being ‘ Anglo-Catholics,” 
became again mere ordinary Anglicans. 

Many have remained true to their principles, and have 
therefore necessarily been carried further—in fact, to the 
extreme limits of the Established Church, or even over them, 
into the Catholic territory. They are those (the number of 
the clergy is estimated at 1,200) whose organ is the paper 
called the “Union.” They belong, fundamentally, quite to 
the Catholic Church—they recognize the necessity of an 
infallible authority in the Church, and they find it in the 
Catholic—they remain for the present in the English Church, 
only in the hope of coming events. Catholic doctrines and 
modes of thought have, they flatter themselves, gained so 
firm a footing, and made, in silence, such progress, that the 
Catholicizing of the Established English Church is now only 
a question of time;! but then it must indeed cease to be—in 
the sense in which it has hitherto been—a State Institution. 
Events are not favourable to this view: the clergy and 
laity have the current of public opinion in the upper and 
middle classes against them; and in the lower the influence 
of the Anglicans is very small. 

Finally, a school or party of the clergy has been distin- 


1 See the declaration in the work called “ Church Parties.” London, 
1857, p. 87. 


166 THE “ BROAD CHURCH.” 


guished as the “ Broad Church.” The designation of “ par- 
ty” is not quite appropriate, since those included in it have 
nothing positive in common. Their entity is in negation: 
they can only be described by saying, they are not Angli- 
eans, they are not Evangelicals, and so on. They are all 
under the influence of German literature and theology; they 
are opponents of a fixed form of doctrine, and they endea- 
your to make the contradictions of the Anglican Church 
formularies more tolerable, by’assigning to dogma in general 
only a relative and temporary value; and declare a sort of 
general Christianity, levelled and smoothed on rationalistic 
principles, to be all that is essential;! though they are well 
content with the Established Church, or a decorous institu- 
tion the best embodiment of the national will in matters 
ecclesiastical, and well adapted to the real state of things. 

For the more serious Anglo-Catholics, or Tractarians, 
“the yoke” of the State Supremacy may in truth be named 
one of “iron.” All the powers are against them—public 
opinion is altogether hostile to them; the higher and middle 
classes are decidedly Protestant, that is, they are opposed to 
all that is Catholic in doctrine, rites, and discipline. Every 
attempt to introduce or re-animate an old-church element in 
the Establishment has been frustrated by the resistance of 
the government, the bishops, and of the people—every ques- 
tidn has been decided to their disadvantage. They have 
been defeated in the struggle with theological rationalism in 
the Hampden controversy; they have suffered in the 
Gorham dispute a two-fold defeat—first, that the question 
has been decided according to the opinion, and in favour of 
the Calvinists ;? and that lay state officials, acting in the 
name of the Queen, have been recognised by almost the 
whole clergy, and of course by the people, as the highest 

1 The ‘* Semi-Infidelity of the Broad Church School” is the expression 
of the ‘* Union,” Jan. 4, 1861. 

? The Church doctrine as to the effect of baptism was, nominally, not 
rejected ; but the Calvinistic was declared permissible ; and this, in fact, 
amounted to a declaration that the English Church has no doctrine con- 


cerning baptism, and that every one may think and teach what he pleases 
about it. 


ESTABLISHED CHURCHES OF BRITAIN. 167 


tribunal, indeed the only organ of the otherwise completely 
dumb English Church —an event to which there can be 
found no parallel in the whole history of the Church previous 
to 1517. At the same time, the first prelate of England, the 
Archbishop of Canterbury, when publicly questioned by a 
clergyman on the subject, answered, that in such things he 
had no more power than any other man—that everyone who 
could read, and who took the Bible into his hand, was as 
capable of deciding the question, and as much entitled to 
decide it, as he was. Every member of the Church must, 
therefore, be under the necessity of renouncing the hope of 
any authoritative decision —of any announcement of doctrine 
on the part of the Church; and however bitter it might 
be, they must adopt the view of the Evangelicals, that in 
England the Church is no more than a religious club, 
which the civil power superintends, and takes charge of and 
keeps in order: the same civil power which in England 
supports the Episcopal Church, and by which in Scotland 
and Ulster Presbyterians, in India Brahminism, in Ceylon 
Buddhism, are paid and supported.' In fact, if the validity 
of Church principles is to be really asserted, the Church 
standard must be applied, and the Establishment declared to 
be an institution, infected through and through with heretical 
principles, corrupt to the very core, and the Erastianism 
of which makes every attempt at cure almost hopeless. At 
every step the lay supremacy comes in the way. The 
Church would gladly, for example, restore the Eucharistic 
Sacrifice, in the Catholic sense, and make it a ceremony of 
divine service for the congregation; but the ministry, or the 
Privy Council, has declared that no “altar” shall be erected 
in a church, but only a “communion-table”—that no lights 


' How little fixed and secure are the prospects of the British Estab- 
lished Church will become clear, if we consider that in Scotland it in- 
cludes rather less than a third of the population, in Ireland a seventh, in 
Wales a tenth, in England the half. Since the English and Irish Church 
are legally joined as ‘‘ the United Church of England and Ireland,” it 
results that this exclusive Established Church includes only a third of 
the population of both countries. 


168 PARLIAMENT. AND THE DIVORCE QUESTION. 


shall be burnt upon thealtar during divine service, and so forth." 

A new defeat for the seriously-disposed among the clergy 
is the law of 1858, which declared that marriages could be dis- 
solved, and at the same time erected a divorce court. Theques- 
tion had formerly been disputed in the Anglican Church. Bur- 
net relates that, as early as 1694, a division had taken place 
among the clergy concerning it—that all the older bishops, 
those appointed under Charles II. and James II., declared 
themselves against the dissolution of marriage on account of 
adultery ; but the new ones, those appointed since the Revolu- 
tion, had pronounced in favour of second marriages in such 
cases.” 

At this time there were not even two parties amongst the 
Bishops. Not one of them declared himself decidedly for 
the indissolubility. Bishop Wilberforce, of Oxford, indeed, 
was inclined to do so, but contented himself with setting up 
a general claim for the Church to decide the question, and 
complained of the wrong done by a body like the Parliament, 
a great part of which did not even belong to the Church, 
arrogating to itself the power to decide upon God’s law 
with respect to marriage. With the same right, he said, 
they might decide concerning baptism, the communion, and 
the confession of faith. 

The Bishop seems to have forgotten that this had already 
actually been done—namely, in the Gorham case, where they 
did decide concerning baptism and confession of faith. 
Whether the Parliament or the Privy Council does this is a 
matter of indifference, since the Privy Council really only 
exists by the will of Parliament. To the question, whether 
a clergyman was bound to solemnise the marriage of a 
couple separated by a divorce, the Attorney-General declared 
that it was the duty of a clergyman, as a minister of the 
National Church, to do whatever the State ordered him. 
This the Bishop of Oxford found rather too hard. It gave 
the idea of a thoroughly degraded, demoralized, and, for 
religion, impotent Church—its bitterest enemies could have 


1 HENGSTENBERG’s “ Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1858, p. 791. 
2 ** History of his own Times,” ed. 1838, p. 601. 


ANOMALOUS POSITION OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 169 


said nothing stronger upon its disgraceful condition.’ At 
_ the same time, if we accept what the English Constitution 
says of the Supremacy of the State, it is impossible to arrive, 
logically and juridically, at a different conclusion from that 
of the Attorney-General. If the English clergy find this 
position dishonourable, it does but remind one of the fable 
of the watch-dog, who, in return for the comforts of his life, and 
the caresses of his master, had to allow himself to be chained. 

Lord Chatham said, in his time, that the English Church 
had Calvinistic Articles, a Papistical Service, and an Arminian 
clergy. The saying has become a general opinion, but the 
designation of the dogmatic sentiments of the clergy is only 
now in so far correct, that the great majority of the clergy 
agree with the Arminians in rejecting the favourite doctrines 
of the Reformation age—* Justification by imputed right- 
eousness,” and Calvinistic “ Predestination.”. The fact, 
however, that the Established Church has not so much as 
the semblance of unity of doctrine and character, is well 
known to every educated Englishman, and appears as 
something quite natural, and as a matter of course. It has 
the effect that, even to the religious-minded Englishman, 
doctrine appears as something relatively unimportant and 
subordinate, which one need not be too exact about ; and it 
has also the further effect, that in questions of doctrine very 
little confidence is placed in clergymen of the Established 
Church, when it is seen that, with the most contradictory 
views, they are able to accommodate themselves to the same 
formularies.? 

From this circumstance we may explain the fact, that, in 
general, there reigns among the clergy a certain fear of 
theology, and a disinclination to theological studies. Pro- 
fessor Hussey, in his last discourse at Oxford, shortly before 
his death, complained that the study of theology was dying 

1 See ‘‘ Charge of the Bishop of Oxford,” 1858.—‘“‘ Christian Remem- 
brancer,” vol. xxv., p. 258. 

2 “ The result is, that the preachers of truth, in their own place and 
office, are the very last persons in the nation to be believed ; that the 
pulpit is as little trusted for sincerity as that appointed resort of hired 
advocacy—the bar.”—‘* Westminster Review,” vol. liv., p. 485. 


170 THEOLOGICAL STERILITY. 


out in England.’ In a theological periodical it has lately 
been maintained that there were not now in Oxford six 
clergymen left who occupied themselves with the study of 
theology. That is comprehensible. The most important 
theological works of recent times have been written by men 
who soon after became Catholics.* Since then, the works of 
the Germanized Rationalists, or Broad Church men, ‘have 
been the theological ‘writings most esteemed.’ The Evan- 
gelicals are struck with sterility, and all the better intellects 
of the younger generation are turning with dislike and 
contempt from this degenerate school, whose average amount 
of culture does not attain to the degree of a good German 
schoolmaster. The Anglican, or High Church school, has 
never, even in its most flourishing time, produced a systematic 
and comprehensive theology. They furnish nothing more 
than essays and fragments; and it is very characteristic, that 
the whole Anglican Church has not a single system or hand- 
book of doctrine to show. This Church, as the excellent 
Alexander Knox has complained, is wanting in all settled 
dogmatic principles. A theological system—a dogmatic 
divinity—presupposes a knowledge of what the Church 
really teaches; but in England no one knows that, or can 
know it—not even the Prime Minister and his Privy Council. 
If, for example, a hand-book of Anglican Theology had been 
issued before the decision of the Gorham controversy, it must 
have been—after that decision—entirely remodelled, since the 
principle thereby disavowed, and the one thereby established, 
govern the entire organism of doctrine—for the question that 
was answered in the negative by the celebrated decision of 
the Privy Council was, whether the dogma of the sacramental 


1“ Christian Remembrancer,” October, 1860, p. 325. 

2 “ Ecclesiastic and Theologian,” December, 1860, p. 547. The article 
is entitled, ‘‘ Intellectual Declension of the Clergy.” 

* Newman, Wilberforce, Manning, William Palmer, Allier, and others. 

‘ Jowett, Maurice, the authors of ‘‘ Essays and Reviews,” &c. 

5 Pearson’s “‘ Exposition of the Creed,” which is given to the young 
as a book of instruction in doctrine, cannot satisfy even the scantiest 
requirements. 

6 * Remains.” London, 1837, iv. 233. 





LIFE OF THE ENGLISH CLERGY. 171 


effect of baptism was a doctrine of the Anglican Church. 
The view of the Evangelicals, according to which baptism is 
a mere rite of consecration, has hereby obtained its franchise 
in the Anglican Church; and that is, even according to the 
Lutheran theology, “a heresy which alone would make 
every union of the Lutherans and Calvinists for ever impos- 
sible.”! 

It may be said of the English Church, that it is like an 
Indian idol, with many heads (and every one with different 
“ views”), but very few hands. The want of freedom in the 
English Church—its being bound to the chariot-wheels of 
the State, and dragged after it through thick and thin, acts 
so much the more injuriously, as it affords to the feebleness, 
slothfulness, and indecision of the English clergy a welcome 
pretext for doing nothing. A large portion of them are quite 
satisfied with their Sunday reading exercises, and pass the 
remainder of their time with their wives and children, or in 
paying visits ;? and in the meantime there exist in England 
millions of persons, who, according to the fiction of “a general 
national religion,” are members of the Established Church, 


1 Kaunis ‘ Die Sache der lutherischen Kirche gegeniiber der Union.” 
Leipsig, 1854, p. 17. 

? Only a few months ago an Established Church periodical made the 
remark, ‘‘ Perhaps no men in any other profession under the sun spend so 
much time with their wives and children.” —*‘ Ecclesiastic and Theologian,” 
Dec., 1859, p. 553. Thus there are in England two modern heresies, 
which have helped to bring about the deplorable state of the English 
Church. The first is, the ‘‘ gentleman heresy,” of which the deceased 
Froude so frequently complained—that is, the idea that a clergyman 
must be and appear before all things a “ gentleman.” Edward Lytton 
Bulwer (in his ‘‘ England and the English,” p. 214) says: ‘‘ The vulgar 
notion that clergymen must be gentlemen born, is both an upstart and an 
insular opinion.” In the second place, the ‘‘ domestic heresy,” in accord- 
ance with which, for the sake of family life, the congregation goes away 
empty. ‘The marriage of the English clergy is, nevertheless, according 
to the remark of a celebrated English dignitary, the solid basis upon 
which the Church of England rests, and by which it is kept together. 
But for that, Englishmen, so accustomed to freedom and self-govern- 
ment, would not have borne so tamely and patiently the yoke of minis- 
terial supremacy. 


172 SPIRITUAL IMPOTENCE OF THE CHURCH. 


but of whom no clergyman of this Church ever takes the 
slightest notice, and-thousands of whom have never heard 
the name of the Saviour mentioned. 

The warmest adherents of the State Church complain of 
its want of influence on the people—of its moral and spiritual 
impotence. Alexander Knox thinks that, interiorally, the 
English Church is the most excellent of all, but practically, 
indeed, the most inefficient.! “If the whole Episcopal 
constitution were done away with,” says Hallam, “it would 
make no perceptible difference in the religion of the people.”? 
The Catholic idea, that the Church is the guardian of divine 
truth, the divinely-appointed teacher, is foreign to the 
Englishman :—“ The true Church,” says Carlyle, not un- 
fairly, “ consists now of the publishers of those political news- 
papers, which preach to the people daily and weekly, with 
an authority formerly only possessed by the reformers or 
popes.”8 

The Church of England declares pure doctrine, the right 
use of the Sacraments, and the maintenance of discipline to 
be the three signs of a true Church. The Church itself, 
however, has no fixed doctrine; its formulas contradict each 
other; and what one part of its servants teach is rejected 
by the other as a soul-destroying error. It is also dumb, and 
incapable of making known, in any form, its true sentiments, 
even when it has them. Concerning the proper administra- 
tion of the Sacraments, there exist within its bosom the same 
contradictions as with respect to doctrine; and as to dis- 
cipline, it has lost even the semblance of unity. How can 
there be even a talk of any correctional discipline in a Church 
that declares every one at his burial in a state of grace— 
whatever chain of sin he may have dragged through his whole 
life, and without his ever having given any sign of repent- 
ance, and who has not even externally or nominally belonged 
to its communion? How fatal is the effect of this general 
beatification at the grave prescribed by the Liturgy, and 


1“ Remains.” London, 1832, i. 51. 
2 * Constitutional History of England,” ii. 238. 
3 ** Miscellanies,” ii. 165. 


ITS DISSOLUTION A QUESTION OF TIME. 173 


into what false security it lulls the mind, has been described 
by Englishmen themselves with terrible severity.' 

But even in this case the Church is helpless, from the 
fear that any change in the liturgy would be used by the 
Evangelicals as a breach through which greater changes 
might be effected. 

On the whole, the entire existence of the Established 
Church is seriously threatened, and its dissolution only a 
question of time. It is completely in the power of the 
House of Commons, and of the Cabinet constituted by the 
majority of that House, which already counts among its 
members a considerable number of Dissenters, who are all 
enemies of the State Church, as well as Catholics, and, it is 
not necessary to mention, the Jews. In the proportion in 
which, through new Reform Bills, extending the suffrage, 
the democratically-disposed middle classes attain to dominion, 
the Church will be damaged by the combined hostility of 
the sectarians and of the professors of no religion, who are 
increasing every year in numbers and influence. Perhaps it 
will, like the Church of the Vaudois, be bound more and 
more closely in the bonds of State authority and the will of 
the majority. The dissolution of this ill-connected organism 
will then follow; the profounder and more earnest minds 
will withdraw from a Church in which the double yoke of 
governmental authority and compulsory communion with a 
foreign doctrine will not allow them in honour and conscience 
any longer to remain. 


THE ENGLISH DISSENTING SECTS. 


_ The Protestant sects of England, taken as a whole, appear 
flourishing and vigorous. They have, in the course of 200 
years, won for themselves a broad territory; they have taken 
away millions of Englishmen from the State Church, and 
they afford a splendid proof of the power of association, of 
the gift of organization, instinctive in the Anglo-Saxon race. 


1 See, for example, Tuorn’s “ Fifty Tracts on the State Church.” 
Tract xii. p. 3. 


174 DISSENTING SECTS. 


They enjoy the most perfect freedom, they arrange their 
affairs quite as may-seem good to themselves. The State 
does not ever exercise any superintendence over them, and 
they Jook down with no unjustifiable feeling of contempt on 
the helplessness and slavery of the Established Church, 
which, in its rent and divided condition, its want of fixed 
doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline—in its incapability of 
manifesting an activity corresponding to the wants of the 
nation, and enlarging its sphere of action—can hardly do 
otherwise than shun a comparison with a free religious com- 
munity. With some who have left the Church, the wish to 
do so has no doubt been influenced by the determination to be 
no longer members of an institution so humiliated, so shackled, 
and so trammeled in the fulfilment of the first and simplest 
duties of a Church. But there is usually another motive 
which has led the trading middle classes out of the Church 
to one of the Dissenting sects. The practical Englishman 
desires a doctrine that shall be accommodating, intelligible, 
consolatory, and tranquillizing, and which shall flatter his 
self-complacency and his prevailing tendencies. All this he 
finds in Calvinism, as it is conceived and taught by the 
Dissenting sects. A man is there taught that, by an act of 
mere imputation of the righteousness of another, one may 
pass into a state of perfect security and certainty of salvation. 
He believes as firmly as he can believe that he is “elect,” 
that by being clothed with the merits of the Saviour, he may 
be received by God as righteous, though inwardly he is not 
so; and that he can never forfeit this state of grace—this 
crown of everlasting glory. He knows no better than that 
all depends on his having a completely favourable opinion of 
his own state. This is the “ Assurance”! that plays so im- 


1“ Zuversicht.”. JONATHAN Epwarps, the most renowned of the 
American theologians, remarks that he scarcely knew a single instance of 
a man who, in consequence of an easy and common self-delusion, had 
arrived at a false conviction of his own ‘‘ state of grace,” ever being unde- 
ceived. For with the natural tendency to self-flattery and self-exalta- 
tion, there was united in almost all the entire absence of due caution and 
fear of self-deception.—Works, London, 1839, i. 257. 





THEIR INTERNAL HISTORY. bee 55° 


portant a part in the religious life of England and America. 
Preachers in public places, as well as in churches and 
chapels, announce to their hearers the immediate and certain 
forgiveness of all sins and assurance of salvation—as the 
price of a momentary excitement and concentration of feel- 
ing. This is called “preaching the Gospel in its fulness 
and freedom.” 

The internal history: of these sects, therefore, turns essen- 
tially on the doctrine of “ Justification” and what is con- 
nected with it; and it may be said that they cannot exist 
and flourish either without this doctrine or with it. Not 
without this doctrine—for, were it renounced, the talisman 
would be broken by which men have been attracted to the 
sect and kept in it—and the decay of the congregation, 
where the favourite doctrine was no longer heard—or even 
of the whole denomination—would soon follow.' But even 
with this doctrine the sects cannot prosper, for its moral 
and religious effect has always beef very injurious. The 
crop of facies which have been regularly brought forth by 
the preaching of the doctrine of “Justification” has been 
generally called in England by the name of Antinomianism; 
but the most. distinguished theologians—Baxter, Williams, 
Bull, and others—showed, as early as the seventeenth cen- 
tury, that what was so called was nothing else than genuine 
Calvinism, followed out into its clearest and most irrefragable 
consequences. In the history and literature of these Churches 
and sects, we accordingly meet with perpetually renewed 
complaints of the plague of Antinomianism,? or, what was 
in fact the same thing, of a Calvinism which hardens the 
conscience and lulls men into a false security. The society 
of Baptists was, according to the strong expression of their 


1 J. Boaue and Bennetr’s “ History of the Dissenters,” iii. 318. 

? BoauE and Bennett, iv. 390. 

8 Strong admissions are made on this subject by RoBeRT in the: 
most distinguished of the Baptist preachers. ‘‘ Difference between 
Christian Baptism and that of John,” p. 58; and also in his collected 
Works, 1839, iii, 123. 


176 DOCTRINAL FLEXIBILITY 


preacher Fuller, very near becoming, with its Calvinism, a 
moral dunghill.! 

If we wish to understand rightly the nature of these made 
religions, we must study the English and American sects 
and dissenters. Christianity is a dough that in their hands 
is kneaded into the most convenient form. The first requisite 
is a doctrine easy to be understood; and that may be com- 
pressed into a few ideas and feelings, which may be found 
pleasantly accommodating to the ruling inclinations and 
course of life among the middle classes—to the trading and 
artisan community. Fixed and accurately expressed Con- 
fessions of Faith are regarded as a burdensome yoke, to which 
neither preachers nor congregations would like to submit. 
Of their own society, Dissenters in general have a poor 
opinion; they are very far from regarding it as the Catholics 
do their Church—as a divine institution, endowed with power 
and authority from above. They know very well that their 
sect, or church system, is only a very recent production, 
contrived for a specific purpose,? and they reserve the right 
of altering its arrangements as may seem good to them. 
That objective certainty, affording security against all error 
in doctrine, which the Church claims for herself, appears to 
the practical middle-class Englishman of no value. 

The only thing he is anxious about is his own subjective 
infallibility ; he requires a system that may afford him an 
easy certainty of his own election, justification, and salva- 
tion. If he has this, he is not very uneasy about dogmatic 
scruples and biblical obscurities. He has a decided aversion 


1 Morris’s ‘‘ Life of A. Fuller;” London, 1816, p. 267. ‘“ Baptists 
would have become a perfect dunghill in society.” 7 

2“ What shop do you go to?” (Welchen Kramladen besuchen sie ?) 
the middle-class Englishman will say, when he wishes to inquire to what 
Church or Dissenting community any one belongs. Of a preacher, they 
say, ‘‘He works that chapel,” as they might say, ‘He works that 
factory.” Churches and chapels are, indeed, frequently ‘‘ shops.” They 
are built upon speculation, and the proprietor is accustomed, when he 
finds that the preacher he has engaged does not possess sufficient power 


of attraction to fill the chapel properly, to dismiss him, and employ 
another. . 





POSITION OF DISSENTING MINISTERS. 177 


to religious practices, symbols, and exercises; to the worship 
of God in humble prayer, and to kneeling. Almost every- 
thing in religion, which-is not a sermon, falls, with him, under the 
general head of “ superstition,” and its empire is in his regard 
illimitable. But he likes to keep the “Sabbath ;” that is to 
say, he does not work on that day, and he listens to preaching ; 
and it suits him much better to sit in judgment upon the 
form and contents of the sermon, than to cast himself down 
in humble adoration before God. 

How little, on the whole, is done by the free or Dissenting 
congregations for the millions of poor, is evident from the 
remark made by Dr. Hume, before a Committee of the House 
of Lords—* That when a district became impoverished, the 
Dissenting congregations generally moved off, and met else- 
where.”! ‘The preachers are, except among the Methodists, 
entirely dependent on the congregation; they are mostly 
scantily paid, and in constant fear of losing a part even of 
their trifling income, through the discontent, or from the 
increased parsimony, of their congregations. The hearers of 
the preacher are his judges and his masters; they decide 
whether his sermons are, according to the standard of 
the sect, orthodox, evangelical, and edifying or not, and 
upon this decision depends, his existence. Before all things, 
the congregation desires to hear repeated its favourite 
doctrine, that man need do nothing himself for his salva- 
tion, but only lay hold of the merits of Christ, and firmly 
believe in his own election and justification ;? that the little 
community is the elect, that it alone is in possession of the 
pure unadulterated Gospel, and is the most genuine and 
the best of all Churches.? Were the preacher incautious 

? “ Christian Remembrancer,” 1860, ii. 97. 

2 See “ British Critic,” vii. 282. Spurgeon, the greatest favourite 
among the preachers of the day, proclaims the purest Calvinism, and is 
fond of telling his numerous hearers how infallibly certain he is of his 
salvation—so that, in fact, there are only two things he need do—sing 
hymns, and sleep.—SrurGron’s ‘tGems.” London, 1859; and the 
_** Saturday Review” thereupon, 1859, i. 340. 


? See the striking description of the position of a Dissenting preacher, 
in the ‘* Christian Remembrancer,” 1860, ii. 86. 


N 


178 PRESBYTERIANISM IN ENGLAND. 


enough to touch on the failings and sins to which his con- 
gregation, especially the richer portion of it, might seem 
most liable, he would be ruined. ‘ As soon,” says Thomas 
Scott, one of the most considerable theologians among the 
Evangelicals, “ as a preacher begins to appeal in an earnest, 
practical manner to the consciences of his hearers, a party is 
formed against him to censure, intimidate, humiliate, resist, 
and finally eject him.”' But, even without having given any 
such offence, he must be prepared, after a few years, to 
receive a hint to resign, when he has preached himself out, 
or the congregation is tired of seeing the same man and 
hearing the same phrases; or even if his wife or his daughter 
has displeased the feminine part of the congregation by 
dressing too well; or if, at a political election, he has not 
voted for the candidate favoured by the majority of his 
hearers. 

The old Presbyterian community, once the most powerful 
and influential among non-episcopal connexions, has, in the 
course of the last century, fallen completely into decay in Eng- 
land, and therewith genuine Presbyterianism has died out. The 
cause of this is to be found chiefly in the change of doctrine. 
The most distinguished theologians of the party—Richard 
Baxter and Daniel Williams—had demonstrated so clearly 
and convincingly the contradictions in the Calvinistic doc- 
trine of Justification, and its inevitable moral consequences, 
that most of the congregations renounced this doctrine, and 
became, according to the customary mode of expression, 
Arminian.? By that means, however, the spiritual bond 
which had held these communities together was loosened ; 
and in the latter part of the seventeenth, and the beginning 
of the eighteenth century, an internal dissolution of the 
Presbyterian congregations commenced. Several of them 
turned to Arianism, at that time recommended by some 
theologians even of the Established Church, and they, in a 
short time, naturally passed into Socinianism. Thus have 


‘ Joun Scort, “ Life of the Rev. Thomas Scott ;” London, 1836, p. 
136. The whole description is instructive. 
? BoGur and Bennetyr, ii. 303. New ed. 





THE METHODISTS. 179 


arisen the present Unitarian congregations, which, rejecting 
almost all the chief doctrines of Christianity, stand at some- 
thing like the same grade that is occupied in Germany by 
the “ Free Congregations.’ Of the 229 Unitarian chapels 
which existed in the year 1851, 170 had been originally 
Presbyterian. The Presbyterians who remained Calvinists 
became amalgamated with “the Independents.” There are 
at present, in England, 160 Presbyterian congregations with 
a Calvinistic doctrine; but most of these are of Scottish 
origin, or consist of immigrant Scotchmen, and are con- 
nected with Scotch sects.! 

The Methodists, or Wesleyans, who have now subsisted 
for a hundred years, may promise themselves a longer life 
than was appointed to the Presbyterians. John Wesley, 
next to Baxter, certainly the most important man whom 
Protestant England has produced, did not really wish to 
establish a new religious community in addition to the 
Established Church, but only an auxiliary society. Under 
his successors, however, and especially by means of Bunting, 
who first gave the connexion its firm organization, the 
auxiliary became a rival, and the Wesleyans have now 
for twenty-five years called their “connexion” a Church, 
though they still constantly maintain that they are one in 
doctrine with the Establishment. 

In Wesley’s community, also, the Justification doctrine 
forms the turning-point, and runs like the thread of destiny 
through the whole history of the sect. Wesley himself fell, 
with respect to this doctrine, into the most flagrant contra- 
dictions, and made great leaps from one dogma to its very 
opposite. For ten years, he said, he had been really a 
Papist without knowing it, and had taught Justification by 
Faith and Works, that most destructive of all the errors of 
Rome, in comparison with which the other errors of “the 
mother of all horrors” were mere insignificant trifles But 
his zeal for the favourite doctrine of Luther and Calvin did 
not last long. The experience of some years convinced him, 

1 Mann’s “ Census of Religious Worship,” p. 1. Lxviii. 
2 SourHey’s “ Life of Wesley,” i. 287-288. 
N2 


180 CALVINISTIC METHODISTS. 


as well as his brother and assistant, Charles Wesley, that 
Protestant Justification by Faith, and Calvinistic Predestina- 
tion, were the utter ruin of all serious religious life. Anti- 
nomianism, he said, had been a greater hindrance to the 
success of his work than all other obstacles together, and 
had destroyed the seed he had been scattering for many 
years.! “ We must all fall,’ he wrote to his brother, 
* through Solifidianism, if we do not summon James to our 
help.”? In the year 1770, John Wesley gave his community 
the signal for a doctrinal revolution; and it shows strikingly 
the personal greatness of the man, and his wonderful gift for 
controlling the minds of his followers, that he could, without 
forfeiting anything of his authority, make so public and 
undisguised a confession of an error in a fundamental doc- 
trine of Christianity, and that he was able to make his whole 
sect alter their creed, and, from Calvinists, to become 
Arminians.? 

A hundred other founders of sects would have failed in 
such an attempt. He obtained an effective support in his 
friend Fletcher, of Madely, whose writings against the Pro- 
testant system are the most important that the theological 
literature of England has to show. It was the fear of 
Calvinistic infection that ultimately induced Wesley to take 
unwillingly the step he had so long delayed, and separate his 
community from the Established Church.‘ His success in 
this was, indeed, only partial—a breach occurred, and 
Whitfield, who had hitherto been his friend, with a troop of 
Calvinistically-disposed members of the society, separated 
themselves from Wesley, and from those who had remained 
faithful to him. A Calvinistic community. of Methodists 
was formed, whose prophet was Whitfield, and its mother in 


1 SouTHEY, ii. 318. 

? FLETCHER’s “* Works.” London, 1836, i. 105. 

* The proclamation (Minutes) of Wesley is given in Southey, ii. 366 ; 
and more completely in the work called ‘‘ Life and Times of Selina, 
Countess of Huntingdon.” London, 1841, ii. 236. 

* “ Correspondence of J. Jebb and A. Knox,” ed. by Forster. London, 
1836, ii. 472. 


ORGANIZATION OF METHODISM,. ~ 181 


the Church, the Countess of Huntingdon, a gifted woman, 
who considered it her appointed: vocation to rule over the 
Church, and appointed and displaced at her pleasure the 
preachers of the “Connexion.”! This sect, which in 1794 
had 100,000 followers, had, in spite of its pure Calvinism, 
sunk down, in 1851, to 19,159, with about 109 chapels. 

The great body of the Wesleyans continued for some time 
in complete prosperity, and, until lately, in increasing growth, 
and such success they owe to their firm, well-calculated organisa- 
tion. But a Protestant community, with Arminian doctrines, 
and which has renounced the imputation doctrine, is not 
generally able, (as the example of the Remonstrants, in the 
Netherlands, shows,) to maintain itself long, at least in such a 
community as is desired by the mass of the people. The 
Methodists are gradually passing back to a conception of 
the process of conversion and justification more suited to 
Protestant ideas, and they are accustomed to place the 
essence of religion in the strongest possible excitement of 
feeling, and an imaginary certainty of grace and salvation. 
With this notion, Wesley’s favourite doctrine of a perfect 
state of sanctification, to which it is possible to attain in this 
life, will not agree; and, at the same time, the idea of 
immediate justification by feeling opens the door to the most 
dangerous illusions and self-flattery. This opening is still 
further widened by the institutions of the society. The 
members are divided into Bands and Classes, and in their 
meetings they have reciprocally to inquire into the state of 
each other’s consciences; they are to question each other 
publicly as to their inward feelings and “ experiences ”—a 
practice which has this inevitable result, that they confess 
not their sins, but their virtues, and their imaginary 
assurances of. grace; and whilst they call themselves the 
most miserable sinners, always declare that they have the 
assurance of salvation. Probably no institution has ever 
been invented that makes it easier for spiritual pride to 
clothe itself in the garb of humility, and to induce persons 
to deceive first themselves, and then others. 

1 Marspen’s “ History of Christian Churches and Sects,” ii. 8, 


182 SECESSIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL BODY. 


It has been stated, to the honour of the Methodists, that 
they had a special gift for alarming, by their preaching, the 
consciences of hardened, unrepentant sinners. Their mode 
of preaching is, above all things, calculated to heat the 
imagination, and the bodily sensations it awakens are 
then regarded as inspirations and effects of the Spirit. 
They have, like certain physicians, only one medicine for all 
ages, sexes, and classes, without any distinction. Their 
uniform method is to frighten people, and agitate them to 
the brink of insanity—to make them at first completely dis- 
consolate, as it is stated in their writings, and then to lead 
them to absolute certainty of being in a state of grace, for 
which one act of faith alone is sufficient.!. A man is desired 
to feel that it is God who has justified him, and thence- 
forth he is justified. Whatever aversion Methodists may 
usually feel to the Calvinistic doctrine, on this point it 
comes very close to it.2 The effect of it is such, that in 
districts where Methodism is very prevalent, an actual change 
takes place in the physiognomy of the people, and you meet 
an unusual number of hard, coarse, and gloomy faces. 

The often-admired strength of the Methodist Church 
constitution has not been able to prevent continued sepa- 
rations, and a decay that is becoming more and more 
visible. The first separation (by Kilham) took place in 
1796, and twenty years afterwards the introduction of an 
organ led to a second separation. In 1835 came the third 
great secession, and the new association of Warren was 
founded. In the meantime, discontent was increasing at 
the boundless and arbitrary power of the Conference, which 
was self-renewing, and had the entire direction of the 
society's affairs. This oligarchy of preachers was accused of 
permitting itself to be ruled by a clique, so that in 1850 


1 It is “a distinct and indubitable internal witness which tells the be- 
liever of his certain acceptance.”—‘ British Critic,” xvi. 12. 

* Thus it was remarked lately (1857) that in Cornwall Methodism was 
altogether Antinomian, that is to say, deeply Calvinistic in its colour.” 
—* Quarterly Review,” vol. cii., p. 323. 

* “ Quarterly Review,” iv. 503. 


CONG REGATIONALISTS. 183 


violent internal disputes broke out, and the whole society 
was thrown into a state of confusion and raging insurrection. 
The Reformers wished to render the constitution of the 
society more democratic, and give the lay element more 
influence. The Conference resisted with unyielding rigidity, 
and the result was, that within three or four years there 
was a further separation of 100,000 members, that is to say, 
nearly one-third of the entire society. 

After the Methodists, the sect of Cougregationalists, or 
Independents, is the most influential from its numbers, and the 
opulence of its members. It has in England 1401 preachers, 
and some hundreds of congregations without preachers, 
They separated themselves from the Presbyterians in the 
seventeenth century, on the principle of complete indepen- 
dence of individual congregations, and to carry out the 
plan of a mere association among themselves. Formerly 
they were strictly Calvinistic in doctrine, and were, there- 
fore, strengthened by the accession of the followers of 
Whitfield,’ who felt more nearly related to them than to the 
Arminian Wesleyans; whilst in Wales, the Calvinistic 
Methodists form an independent and tolerably numerous 
sect. The Independents, in 1833, published a Confession 
of Faith,? which is wide enough, and vague enough, to admit 
of very different views, and, moreover, all authority and 
binding power are expressly renounced. It is, therefore, 
signed by no one, and there cannot be, consequently, any 
question of a definite doctrine among the Congregationalists. 
The preachers are, therefore, free to preach this or that 
doctrine at their pleasure; or, rather, they have to accom- 
modate their preaching to the views and expectations of 
their congregations, and especially of the more opulent and 
influential members. In order to maintain their position 
they must continually keep their finger on the mental pulse 
of their hearers, and see that their lectures are in harmony 
with it. 

1 MarsDAN, ii. 22. 


? It is to be found in Mann’s “ Causes of Religious Worship,” 1853, 
p. liv. 


184 BAPTISTS, QUAKERS, ETC. 


The Baptists also are, in general, decided Calvinists in 
their views of the dogmas of Election and Justification ; 
they are distinguished, from the other parties of the same way 
of thinking, by their principle of performing baptism only 
on adults, and by complete immersion, since any other form 
is, in their opinion, no baptism at all. They arose in 
England about the year 1608, but never formed any connec- 
tion with the Mennonites of Holland and Germany, and did 
not attain to any importance till 1688. Towards the end of 
the last century, their Calvinism, or Antinomianism, was so 
fully developed, that most of their preachers would only 
speak of and to the elect, and would have nothing to do 
with sinners in their congregations.1. The absence of a con- 
fession of faith, laxity of Church constitution, and the 
complete dependence of the preachers on the congregations, 
belong to their character as asect. From the chief party, called 
“Particular Baptists,” five smaller sects have diverged, 
partly from aversion to Calvinism, partly on account of 
certain differences. In 1851, the Particular Baptists num- 
bered 1947 congregations. 

The Quakers, or Friends, who, being convinced that the 
immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost is attainable by 
everyone, have neither sacraments nor ordained preachers, 
but edify themselves by the discourses of spiritually-awak- 
ened men and women. These are now a declining sect, and, 
since the beginning of this century, have decreased consider- 
ably in England. The Moravian Brethren vegetate in Eng- 
land, with their little community of thirty-two chapels, as a 
quiescent, scarcely noticeable little household ; and the Swe- 
denborgian Church of the New Jerusalem, since its doctrines 
have no especial comfort in them, cannot infuse any greater 
animation into their fifty congregations; for such was the 
number in 1851. More sensation has been caused by the 
still young Irvingites. Agreeing with the Plymouth Bre- 
thren, that immediately after the Apostles the Church began 
to decline, they have undertaken, by means of a new 


* This is mentioned by OLinrHus Grecory, in the Biography of the 
celebrated Baptist Preacher, Robert Hall.—See Marspen, i. 83, 


IRVINGITES AND PLYMOUTH BRETHREN. 185 


gift of the Holy Ghost to them, to re-establish the true 
Church (long since fallen into fragments and ruins) with its 
four essential offices— those of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, 
and Shepherds. . They reject entirely Protestantism, with its 
assumption of sovereign judgment for every individual in 
matters of faith—its revolutionary method of proceeding 
“from below upward”—and in the Justification doctrine ; 
whilst in the Sacraments, and in the sacrificial character of 
their service, they approach nearly to the Catholic Church. 
The personal visible appearance of the Saviour, the first 
resurrection, and the commencement of the Millennium, are 
expected speedily. But the community of the Apostolic 
Church has nothing especially attractive to the English; its 
doctrine is not, like that of other sects, consoling and flatter- 
ing to self-love—it is wanting in the talisman of the Imputa- 
tion dogma, and the cheap certainty of salvation—it has too 
much that is Catholic, Liturgical, and Sacramental. It has, 
therefore, only a few small congregations in England, and 
has- no prospect of increasing them. On the other hand, 
Mormonism, with its Christian mask, which has been intro- 
duced from America, has obtained within a few years nearly 
20,000 adherents. 

The Plymouth Brethren, or Darbyites, as they are called, 
from their still living founder, may be said to exist on the real 
or assumed decrease of all other Churches. For in consequence 
of an apostacy of the first Church, which took place, they say, 
in the Apostolic time itself, there is no true Church nor any 
spiritual office any more existent, but all Churches are under 
the Divine curse. No one must presume to build up again 
this fallen Church; but the Holy Spirit, with its gifts, has re- 
mained to the faithful, and the Brethren edify one another by 
means of these gifts present among them. The sect is a re- 
juvenated and modified Quakerdom: it is distinguished 
chiefly by negations ; it will have no confession-formula—no 
liturgy, no church organisation, no sabbath according to the 
English fashion, no sacraments, and only two symbols or 
testimonies—baptism and the breaking of bread. This, like 
most English sects, occupies itself much with the expecta- 


186 THE CHURCH IN SCOTLAND, © 


tion of the approaching thousand years of Christ’s kingdom. 
In the year 1851 its places of meeting amounted to 132.’ 


THE CHURCH IN SCOTLAND. 


In Scotland, John Knox, Calvin’s most devoted son, triumph- 
antly succeeded in establishing the Calvinistic-Presbyterian 
doctrine and church form, after the pattern of Geneva. The 
people have become completely imbued with this system. 
Under Charles II. Presbyterianism was indeed defeated ; 
four hundred preachers had to withdraw, and the Episcopal 
Constitution appeared to be victorious. The Cameronians 
alone maintained themselves in remote districts. The change 
was nevertheless merely external. Doctrine, Church customs 
and observances, were not touched, and Calvinism continued 
to be in accordance with the general mode of thought. In 
this long struggle of the Scotch Church, and its resistance 
against the Royal power, the opposition of the Scotch was 
strengthened by the republican constitution of their Church, 
which associated together both clergy and laity in one com- 
mon action. The result has been, that this Church, among 
all Protestant communities, became distinguished by its in- 
dependence and freedom, and for its never having sunk into 
the notorious servitude of the English Church. 

With the Revolution of 1688, and the elevation of William 
(himself a Calvinist and Presbyterian), there commenced a 
complete and absolute change of circumstances. The “ par- 
sons,” so were the Episcopal clergy called, were in a popular 
insurrection ill-treated, plundered, and driven away, and 
* ministers” (for the Scotch will not hear of “parsons,” or 
“priests,” or “clergymen,” but only “ servants,”) and these, 
the “ ministers,” immediately placed themselves in possession 
of the parsonages and churches. The Presbyterian National 
Church, being now also favoured by the Government, pre- 
sented itself as the sole established Church of the country, 
and was able to plant its foot on the neck of its enemy, the 
Episcopalian Church. It is, in truth, one of the most extra- 


* Reurer’s “ Repertorium,” vol. l., p. 276, and vol. li., p. 82. 


DEBASING INFLUENCE OF CALVINISM. 187 


ordinary but significant facts in the history of Protestantism, 
that after the last rising of the Highlanders in favour of the 
Stuarts, in 1745, the British Parliament—which at that time, 
of the 526 members in the Lower House, could count 513 
as belonging to the Episcopalian Church—should yet have 
passed a series of Penal Laws against the self-same Church, 
on the other side of the Tweed—laws which threw its clergy 
completely within the power of their bitter enemies the 
Presbyterians,! and brought down upon them a harsh perse- 
cution. 

Upon the whole, Calvinism, after a rule of one hundred 
and fifty years, exercised no favourable influence on the 
social condition of the Scotch nation. The Scotch patriot, 
Andrew Fletcher, of Saltoun, describes its situation at the 
close of the seventeenth century in the gloomiest colours: 
“One-fifth of the population then consisted of wandering 
beggars, and many of these were dying of starvation; there 
were one hundred thousand vagabonds living by theft and 
robbery in the country, and one-half of the whole landed 
property was in the hands of an idle, worthless, violent gang 
of robbers.”? Fletcher knew of no other remedy to be pro- 
posed for such a state of barbarism than—the introduction of 
slavery ! 

It is a very significant fact, that the Scotch people, who 
on many occasions exhibited a fiery zeal for Calvinism, and 
who could be easily roused by their preachers to a religious 
insurrection, should yet, for centuries together, have done 
nothing as regards their churches. The Reformation had 
nowhere awakened a more wild desire for destruction than in 
Scotland; it had left only a few ruins of the beautiful and 
spacious churches of the country in the times of Catholicity. 
Since then the people made shift with wretched hovels, with 
damp unhealthy cabins, which often had more the appearance 
of stalls for cattle than God’s houses; and during the whole 
of the eighteenth century not one single church had been 


1 SrePHENs’s “ History of the Church of Scotland.” London, 1848, 


iv. 327. ; 
? TyTLeR’s ‘“‘ Memoir of Lord Kames.” Edinburgh, 1814, ii, 227, 


188 PURITANISM AND INTEMPERANCE, 


built by a people who regarded themselves as the most reli- 
gious in Europe. Many parishes had no church at all, and 
the people listened to their preachers in the open air.’ 

As regards the present time, what surprises one at the first 
glance is, that the people who are regarded by Englishmen 
as the most theological amongst all European nations, should 
be also persons with whom there is a universal passion for 
drink. “Itisa fact,” says the “Saturday Review,”? “that Scot- 
land presents the spectacle of the most Puritanized and most 
drunken community on the face of the earth. New York is 
about the most profligate city in the world. In Geneva, re- 
ligion is all but unknown; and in Glasgow the sons of the 
Covenanters are the most drunken population on the face of 
the earth.”® 

If the Church of the Netherlands and of Scotland are 
compared with one another, the contrast is striking. Both 
Churches have, in the main, a like faith, and the one doc- 
trine, founded on the fifth Dordrecht article; they have, too, 
a similar Constitution; and yet, how great is the difference 
between them! Whilst Protestantism in the Netherlands 
has produced so abundantly a theological literature, Scotch 
Calvinism—although, by similarity of language, brought 
under the operation of rich English literature—has yet 
remained sterile; and has, in its spiritual poverty and 
lethargy, contented itself with very few, and very poor, pro- 
ductions—a fact the more surprising, when occurring amongst 
a people so intellectually gifted. Gross ignorance in theolo- 


1 CunnincHAmM’s “Church History of Scotland.” Edinburgh, 1860, 
ii, 586-587. ; 

2 October 8, 1859, p. 421. 

3 ** Scotland is now, by its increased consumption of spirits, the country 
most given to drink in all Europe. Since 1825, the consumption of 
spirits has quintupled. In a similar proportion have crime, diseases, and 
deaths increased.” —‘t Neue Preuss. Ztg.,” 21st Feb., 1854. The Scotch- 
man Laine (‘ Observations on the Social and Political state of the 
European People,” London, 1850, p. 284,) says, that his countrymen 
must not boast of their morality, so long as, according to statistical re- 
turns, they exceed England in their enormous consumption of spirits, 
and drink about four times as much as Ireland, 


THEOLOGICAL STERILITY OF CALVINISM. 189 


gical matters had always been a striking feature of the Scotch 
preachers. Burnet, even in his time, makes the remark.! 
Since the Reformation, Scotland has had, in fact, only two 
important theologians—Robert Leighton and Forbes; and 
both belonged to the Episcopal Church, and were themselves 
bishops. Theological instruction has been very negligently 
carried on: “the students were for the greatest portion—or, 
at the least—partly a very large portion of each year dis- 
charged from the strictly scientific course,” and, in the inter- 
mediate time, occupied themselves with the teaching of 
children.? If we put aside a period of prevailing moderatism, 
but which was merely scepticism as to dogma,’ we find that 
original thought, and variety in opinion and teaching, were 
unheard of in Scotland among the clergy, as well as the 
laity, although the official Catechism makes it the duty of 
every Scotch Christian to examine what he has heard in 
sermons by the Holy Scriptures.‘ Had this “ duty” really 
been performed, by only a small number, ecclesiastical divi- 
sions would naturally have become much greater than they 
have been. The spirit of the nation remained bound up in 
the Calvinistic system. Only questions of Church constitu- 
tion, and, before all things, that of patronage, have agitated 
the Scotch. The sect-system did not originate in the Scotch 
soil, but was rather dragged in upon it from England. The 
_ great secession of the preceding century took place, not on 
account of doctrines, but by reason of the constitution and 
position of the civil power. : 

A glance at the dogma of the Scotch Church, as it has 
found expression in the Westminster Confession, and which 
still passes as its valid confession of faith, enables us to learn 
what is the chief cause of the Scotch dislike to theology. 


1“ History of his own Time,” p. 103. 

* Késtiin in “Der deutschen Zeitschrift fiir Christl. Wissenschaft,” 
i. 190. 

* To this time and disposition belongs the only important Exegist the 
Scotch Church has produeed—Macknigut—who, however, according to 
the standard of the Westminster Confession, was very heterodox. 

* “ Confession of Faith,” &c., p. 318. 


190 _ THE CALVINISTIC SYSTEM OF FAITH. 


There is, in-fact, a solid chain of belief, with which the 
Calvinistic system, as it is fixed in the Westminster Con- 
fession, has encircled the minds of men. Ever since the 
people have been taught to measure the value of a religion 
according to the amount of confidence it affords, it is but 
natural that the Calvinist should be still more firmly con- 
vinced of the excellence of his dogma than the Lutheran, 
since the problem as to which affords the higher degree of 
tranquillizing confidence is here solved. Man—so this system 
teaches—receives, by the hearing of preaching, the soul- 
saving faith that he is, from all eternity, one of the elect; 
and that God will attribute to him, as if he himself had 
yielded it, the obedience of Christ. This faith, and the un- 
failing assurance of his election, of his state of grace, or his 
righteousness, and his future salvation, are never again lost 
by him, although a transitory doubt or obscurity may intrude 
upon him.'’ He now knows that he is under the irresistible 
power of the grace of God; and that all that he does, or ne- 
glects doing, is in accordance with God’s will, and by God’s 
grace. If he sins, he remains, nevertheless, one of the elect, 
and irrevocably in a state of grace; and he knows this will 
be his state, even though, like David, he commit murder and 
adultery. By such sins, the certainty of salvation may, in- 
deed, be shaken, diminished, obscured, says the Confession ; 
but the seed of God, and the life of faith, are never quite 
lost to the believer. And since, according to the doctrine of 
the Confession, he is unfree, and a merely passive instrument 
of the Divine Will—and that the best deed has in it a mix- 
ture of evil, so that the good in it is the action of God, 
through man, but the evil man’s own addition to it—so per- 
sons can pretty well tranquillize themselves, even concerning 
sins that are, according to human judgment, heavy and 
grievous.? 


1 “The Confession of Faith, &c., of Public Authority in the Church of 
Scotland.” Glasgow, 1756, p. 98. 

? Concerning the practical effects which this system produces, there is 
an article in the “Quarterly Review,” vol. Ixxxix., p. 307, entitled 
“ Puritanism in the Highlands.” The writer observes: “It is held that 


THE STUDY OF CHRISTIAN MORALS RENOUNCED. 191 


With such a doctrine, it is easily explained, as Késtlin re- 
marks, why there is so little mention, in their sermons, of the 
Revelation of the Son of God in the flesh, and the human 
history of the Saviour; and that “Scotch theology possesses 
no system of pure Christian ethics.”! He adds, further, that 
in this system the real meaning of Evangelical faith never 
comes to light. 

What Kostlin here remarks of the Scotch Church, is also 
shown, elsewhere, as the natural consequence of the Pro- 
testant doctrine of “ Justification.” It was not possible to 
bring a tolerable scientific moral theology into harmony with 
this doctrine; and, therefore, so long as the mastership of 
the system built upon “ Imputation” lasted, there too was 
renounced the study of Christian morals. 

This has been already remarked by Staudlin?—that, in 
consequence of the Lutheran doctrine of faith, no one, during 
the whole of the sixteenth century (and up to 1634), in the 
whole German Evangelical Church, had ever thought of 
treating “Christian morals” as a special science, or even in 
their dogmatic system entering into its doctrine in any 
detail. The first who undertook to do so was Calixtus, but 
he immediately departed from the Lutheran dogma. The 
historians of the Netherland Church, Ypey and Dermout, 
confirmed this fact with respect to the Calvinistic theo- 
logy. Theological, Biblical ethics had, neither in the uni- 
versity lectures nor in literature, any place. Every one 
feared an inevitable collision with the dogma, and dreaded 


a person of great faith, according to his own account, and of extraordi- 
nary attainments, as his neighbours believe, in praying and prophesying, 
and generally of high devotional repute, may indulge in various sins 
without endangering his everlasting safety, or, of course, weakening his 
position as a man,” (so are called here those deemed especially sacred and 
pious). I have been assured in Scotland, that the example of David was 
regarded by the people as particularly consolatory and tranquillizing. The 
writer of the above-quoted article remarks (p. 325), that the preachers 
frequently cherish such notions, and—according to the Westminster Con- 
fession—they are justified in doing so. 

1 “* Deutsche Zeitschrift,” i. 187-8. 

2 “ Geschichte der Christ]. Moral.” Gdéttingen, 1808, p. 235. 


192 MODERATISM. 


that he might get into bad odour as “a law-teacher.”! All 
the later Protestant moral theologians, therefore—men like 
Baxter, Hammond, Taylor, Mastricht, La Placette, and Ar- 
nold—were decided opponents to the Protestant doctrine of 
“ Justification.” But wherever that doctrine has remained 
predominant, there also has there been no moral theology. 

The fear of the morally destructive effects of the Calvinistic 
system, and a perception of the actual consequences following 
from it, essentially contributed, about the middle of the last 
century, to create what is called Moderatism—a mode of 
thought corresponding to German “ Rationalism ”;? although 
here again, as almost always in Scotland, ecclesiastical an- 
tagonism, between patronage and congregational election, 
became most prominent. According to their theological 
tendencies, the most of the Moderatist preachers were “ Pe- 
lagian,” or even “Socinian,” in their views; but yet they 
did not usually attack the received doctrine: they endea- 
voured, by confining their preaching to moral subjects only, 
to avoid it—and so made the yoke of the Calvinistic confes- 
sion light for themselves. The leaders of this school passed 
for unbelievers amongst the people, and at their divine service 
scarcely a tenth of the congregation were accustomed to be 
present.? 

Against this long-predominant Moderatism arose, in the 
present century, the reaction of “the Evangelical party,” 
whose spiritual leader was Thomas Chalmers. This party 
has passed into the Free Church. But the genuine old Dor- 
drecht Calvinism is now no longer preached by the majority 
of the clergy of both Churches—the State Church and the 
Free Church. Only among the “reformed” and “ United 
Presbyterian ” does it still reign. According to the state- 
ment of Maurice, the mechanical, fatalistic doctrine of the 


' “* Geschiedenes van de hervormde Kerk in Nederland.” Breda, 1822, 
ii. 409. 

? Késriry in “‘ Herzogs Encyklop.,” xiii. 720. 

* See the picture given of them in ‘‘ Hamilton’s Autobiography ” in 
the ‘* Quarterly Review,” vol. xcviii., p. 362. 

* See the newspaper, the “‘ Union,” 7th June, 1861, p. 356. 


JUDAICAL OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. 193 


American, Jonathan Edwards (a doctrine which relegates all 
human freedom and self-determination to the sole will of 
God as affecting all things), has gained great influence in 
Scotland. This influence, according to Maurice, is connected 
with Materialism, which is very widely spread in that 
country. That the old Calvinistic faith is, however, lost 
to the Scotch Church, is, according to his testimony, the 
view of every intelligent man in the country.! In such a 
state of things a scientific theology in Scotland is not to be 
thought of. With it the most irreconcileable contradictions 
would come to light immediately ; and the preachers would 
forfeit all authority among a people so watchful over all 
things connected with the Church. It is only by an entire 
absence of theology that the three Presbyterian communities 
can maintain their existence. 

In a Jewish rigidity of the observance of the Sabbath, the 
Scotch Calvinists endeavour to surpass even their English 
co-religionists—so much so, that even a little walk for recrea- 
tion on the Sunday is not permissible. And so, on the other 
hand, there is on that day a much greater consumption of 
spirituous liquors. In their churches there is no organ, no 
altar, no cross, no pictures, no light.2 In God’s service no 
symbol, no liturgical action. Calvinism has nowhere—and 
certainly not in Scotland—been able to produce a religious 
poetry. Of devout hymns that might be sung in church, no 
one has ever even mentioned them, for a psalm is the only 
thing that can be sung there. That there had been a defi- 
ciency of religious compositions suitable for popular perusal 
was a want already felt in England; whilst, as regards 
Scotland, such a deficiency is strikingly apparent. Hence it 
is that they are so much the more dependent upon the words 
of their preachers—for by them alone are the people pro- 
vided with religious ideas and feelings. The complete pre- 
ponderance of the sermon in a divine service, stripped of 
every liturgical element, the people are well content with, 
since this passivity of mere hearing and receiving, instead of 

1“ Kingdom of Christ.” London, 1842, i. 157-60. 
2 “ Hengstenberg’s Kirchen-Zeitung,” vol. xlix., p. 962. 
oO 


194 PRESBYTERIAN CARICATURE OF PRAYER. 


the religious activity which is calculated upon in the Catho- 
lic worship, agrees with-their mode of thought. For 
the same interest of convenience and passivity are the 
long prayers (commonly lasting for half-an-hour), introduced 
into every service by the clergyman, and into which he 
huddles all the notions that occur to him. Ever since there 
have been Christians, the complete spiritual dependence of 
the laity upon the clergy and their religious tutorship has 
never been carried so far as it now is in Scotland. Instead 
‘of speaking to God himself, from his own personal position 
and character, the Scotchman willingly leaves it to the 
preacher to tell him, for half-an-hour together, how he can, 
or should, pray. This plan is, at least, according to the 
feeling of all educated persons, so much the more perverse, 
since the clergyman, in the absolute absence of the confes- 
sional, has very little precise knowledge of the state of the 
soul and spiritual wants of the laity. A very animated and 
well-written work of a celebrated and seriously religious 
Scotch lawyer, Home, Lord Kames,' presents a picture of the 
endless abuses, absurdities, and blasphemies connected with 
this practice. The necessity of the long public prayer natu- 
rally causes this prayer to be frequently nothing more than a 
‘sermon—a sermon disguised as being addressed to God—or 
it degenerates into empty gossip and hollow phrases; or the 
preacher may intrude his own petty passions and prejudices 
upon his hearers in. the form of a prayer. The Duke of 
Argyle has, in his defence of Scotch Presbyterianism, ad- 
mitted that it is a great defect of this Church system that 
the entire devotion of the congregation is dependent 
upon the will of the preacher.2- The consequences of such a 
system have not failed to follow it. The Presbyterian 
Churches are losing more and more the higher and educated 
classes of the country. The whole of the nobility, with the 
exception of two families, have gradually passed to the 
Episcopal Church, which, as well as the Catholic, is continu- 

1“ A Letter from a Blacksmith to the Ministers and Elders of the 
Church of Scotland.” Dublin, 1757. 

* “ Presbytery Examined.” London, 1848, p. 302. 





RITUAL POVERTY OF THE SCOTCH CHURCH. 195 


ally increasing. A great number, too, of the educated 
classes, though they have not formally left the State Church, 
yet rent seats in the Episcopal Chapel, in order that they 
may attend on the Sunday to the dignified forms of an — 
Episcopal liturgy, instead of listening to declamation offen- 
sive to every refined feeling, and phrases (purporting to 
be prayers) of an uneducated, or half-educated, clerical 
speaker.! 

Further, it is to be observed that the unfrequent and 
undignified celebration of ‘Communion is felt as a repulsive — 
evil. It is converted into a theatrical display-piece of per- 
formance, in which a long preparation, when several clergy- 
men speak in turns one after another, is the main-piece of 
action. The crowding of the guests, the coming and going 
of those who are to sit at the long tables, whilst bread and 
wine are handed about in dishes and goblets—the numerous 
lookers-on filling the church; the noise and confusion that 
prevail—are all circumstances portrayed by Lord Kames in 
harsh colours. The low notion which the Scotch as well 
as English Calvinists are accustomed to entertain respecting 
the purport of Communion compels them to supply the 
meagreness of the ceremony by high-flown pathos on the 
part of preachers, in their raging excitement, trying to out- 
top one another. 

The mode of burial, also, in Scotland, manifests a ritual 
poverty and disdain of everything symbolical. The Duke of 
Argyle complains of this. When Wesley was in Scotland 
he was greatly struck by the contrast between the English 
and the Scotch mode of interment. When, he said, the 
coffin was shovelled into the earth without a single word 
being spoken, it reminded him of the words of Scripture 
concerning “the ass’s burial” of Jehoakim.? 

The Free Church, the separation of which from the State 
Church began in the year 1843, and that now comprise 
one-third of the population, has developed a wonderful 

1 See, upon this subject, an article, ‘‘ John Knox’s Liturgy,” in the 


‘** Edinburgh Review,” vol. xcev., p. 477, et seq. 
* SoutuEy’s ‘‘ Life of Wesley,” ii. 248. 


02 


196 THE SCOTCH EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 


amount of strength and activity. It has, in seventeen years, 
built above 800 churches, and a corresponding number of 
parsonages and schools, out of voluntary contributions; and 
it has, too, assigned to its preachers a considerable income. 
The former Secessionists have, for the most part, united 
among themselves, so that there are now three Presbyterian 
Churches—the State Church, the Free Church, and the 
United, subsisting by the side of one another. To these are 
to be added the Independents, who have about 100, although 
mostly small congregations. In narrower dimensions exist 
Baptists, Methodists of two descriptions, Glassites, Unita- 
rians, and Quakers. Lately, there has been rather a widely 
diffused sect—the Morisonians—which, in opposition to 
Calvinism, teaches the universality of the Redemption.! 
Thus, then, is Scotland, ecclesiastically the most divided 
nation in Europe, and in this respect only surpassed by 
another country, America. 

The Episcopal has, it will be thus seen, favourable 
prospects in Scotland. Formerly, it and its service passed 
for nothing better than a “ modified idolatry ;” and, in order 
that they might exterminate it by the sword, the Scotch set 
up their Covenant. When negotiations were going on for 
the political union of Scotland with England, the Scotch 
Church addressed a petition to the Parliament in Edinburgh, 
declaring it would bring down heavy guilt upon itself and 
the nation, if it consented that the constitution and cere- 
monies of the Church of England should obtain a legal foot- 
ing in England itself;? and still less could it, of course, 
endure the thought of a toleration of that Church on Scottish 
soil. Upon the news of the death of Queen Anne, in 1714, 
the Episcopal Chapel in Glasgow was, on the instant, de- 
stroyed. Since then, this Church has obtained perfect 
freedom, and has, of late years, by the erection of some good 
schools, and the college of Glenalmond, as well as by the 
building of the cathedral of Perth, given signs of its vigour. 
But lately, however, party spirit, dogmatic contradictions, 


1“ Union,” 14th Dec., 1860, p. 188. 
2 “« Edinburgh Review,” vol. xxvi. p. 55. 


THE CHURCHES IN HOLLAND. 197 


and discord have broken out in its bosom, so that now, as a 
periodical recently said, persons in this Church are engaged, 
with all their means and all their strength, in tearing down 
what they ought to build up.! 

Lord Clarendon said in his time (1660) of the Scotch: 
“ that their whole religion consisted in a hatred of Popery.”? 
That “ the Pope is the Antichrist, the Man of Sirf, and the 
Child of Perditiom;”—and that, consequently, all who attach 
themselves to him are lost—has always been, where genuine 
Calvinism prevailed, received as an article of faith, and it 
stands as such in the Westminster Confession. All classes 
and authorities, ecclesiastical as well as temporal, have, 
since the victory of the Reformation, always zealously 
co-operated to destroy the Catholic religion. But in this 
they have not succeeded. In the year 1700, every priest 
who returned from banishment was condemned to death; and 
old men of seventy years of age, who had ventured to give 
their religious services to poor Catholic Highlanders, lan- 
guished away their lives in pestiferous dungeons.? The old 
Church stands, nevertheless; and it has in recent times— 
namely, through Irish immigration—considerably increased, 
and its churches and chapels have arisen from 87 in the 
year 1848, up to 183 in the year 1859. 


THE CHURCHES IN HOLLAND. 


The reformed Church in Holland comprehends about 
one-half of the population. It counted in the year 1856, 
1,668,443 members. (The total population, in the year 
1859, amounted to 3,348,747 souls.) After this comes the 
Catholic Church, with 1,164,142 souls. Then there are the 
Lutherans, about 600,000 (divided into two sects); and then 
the Mennonites, 38,000; Separatists, 42,000; and 5,000 
Remonstrants. Thus two-fifths of the population are Catho- 


1 “ Keclesiastic,” February, 1860, p. 50. 

* The Oxford edition has modified this expression into—“‘a great part 
of their religion.” See ‘‘ Edinburgh Review,” vol. xliv. p. 38. 

5’ CHAMBERS’S “‘ Domestic Annals of Scotland,” iii. 205. 


198 THE REFORMED CHURCH. 


lic. Two out of the eleven provinces are almost entirely 
Catholic, and three almost wholly Protestant. In the mean- 
time, Calvinism retains the tradition of its former domina- 
tion. And although the Calvinist dogma, the Dordrecht 
orthodoxy, has vanished from the minds of the great ma- 
jority, still the Calvinist antipathy to the Catholic Church 
has maintained itself—so that the two creeds are thus more 
sharply separated, and more inimically opposed to each other, 
than is the case in Germany. 

The new organization of the Reformed Church, in the year 
1816, had (in contradiction to the old Calvinist doctrine) 
principles introduced by the King, which allowed to the 
State great influence, and, according to the views of many 
persons, much too great influence in Church affairs. 

But, by the Constitution of 1852, the greatest freedom 
and independence of movement has been secured to the 
Reformed Church. The chief power rests with the freely- 
elected Synod, and its decisions are subject to no royal 
placet. The only thing, almost, that there can be found to 
object to is, that the Professors of Theology are nomi- 
nated by the Government, without the co-operation of the 
Church.! 

Calvinism, in Holland, has the advantage of being inti- 
mately interwoven with historical recollections, of which the 
Netherlanders are especially very proud. The struggle against 
the Spanish dominion was, at the same time, a struggle for 
the Protestant cause; and with the establishment of the 
Dutch Republic also ensued the establishment of the 
Reformed Church. 

Holland was, for a long time, the classic land of genuine 
Calvinism. The struggle between Lutheranism and Cal- 
vinism in Germany exercised little or no influence upon the 
internal development of the Reformed Churches; but the 
ejection of Arminianism, and the decision and fixing of the 
Calvinist doctrine, as to Grace, Election, and Justification, 
through that dispute, is to be regarded as the most important 


1 “ Exposé Historique de l’état de l’Eglise ref. des Pays-bas.” Amster- 
dam, 1855, p. 23. 


THE GRONINGER SCHOOL. 199 


event in the whole early history of Reformed Protestantism. 
The Dordrecht Synod is the culminating point in this his- 
tory, and it is in the bosom of the Dutch Church, and with 
its forces, that those battles were fought and those posses- 
sions won.! 

But from this height of Calvinistic renown the Dutch 
Church has long since descended. In England, Scotland, 
and North America, there are still adherents to the Five 
Articles; but in their native home, the race of Dordrecht 
confessors among the clergy, if it has not entirely died out, 
has certainly shrunk up into a very small party. 

Three or four sections may be distinguished amongst the 
clergy ; and every one of them, in its views of Christianity, 
widely differs from the others. 

The Gréninger school, whose theological head is Hofstede 
de Groot, was a short time ago the most numerous. It 
might be named, according to the German designation, 
“ Rationalist,” only that the title of Rationalist would pass 
in Holland as an offensive expression.? With this school, 
Christ is but a mere potential Socrates, Who wisely adapted 
Himself to existing ideas, and can make no claim to absolute 
truth in His doctrine. All the chief doctrines of Chris- 
tianity are, therefore, resolved into the transitory ideas of the 
time. A Church with a settled doctrine, binding on the 
clergy, is to this party—a horror.’ 

For the present, however, the Leyden school, with Pro- 
fessor Scholten at its head, is the one which has the greatest 
preponderance among the clergy, or promises to retain it. 
With that section most of the younger theologians may be 


1 So lately, Mente D’AuBiGNE. ‘ Quand est-ce que l’Eglise de Hol- 
lande a été triomphante et glorieuse? Quand a-t-elle marché a la téte 
de toutes les églises de la Chrétienté? C’est lorsqu’il lui fut donné de 
porter dans les murs de Dordrecht le plus complet, le plus magnifique 
témoinage, qu’ait jamais été permis aux hommes de rendre & la grace 
de Jesus-Christ.” Compare GROEN DE PrINsTERER, “‘ Le Parti Anti- 
révol. et Confessionnel,” p. 18. , 

2 Messner’s ‘* Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1861, p. 163. 

* CHANTEPIE DE LA SaAussayE in the German “ Zeitschrift fir 
Christl. Wissenschaft,” 1855, p. 200. 


200 THE THEOLOGIANS OF UTRECHT. 


reckoned. Many deem its spirit as much more injurious than 
that of the Gréninger theology: because the veiled rational- 
ism and heathenism of the Leyden school assumes the autho- 
rity of being a deeper speculative establishment of the Cal- 
vinistic system of unconditional predestination; whilst, in 
point of fact, the whole theology of this same school leads 
ultimately fo a dispersion and dissolution of individual 
personality—Divine as well as human. 

Of the theologians of Utrecht, and their disciples, it is 
said, to their honour, that if they are not Calvinistically or- 
thodox, they are more Christianly conservative than the 
two other schools. The religious party under Groen van 
Prinsterer, and not represented in the universities, calls itself 
the “Christian Historical,” and personifies the genuine Calvin- 
ism that is so intimately interwoven with the history of the 
country. It desires of the civil power that it will maintain 
by compulsion the old creed ; and of the Church authorities, 
that they. will tolerate no variation from it in preachers ; 
but at the same time it complains of its weakness, and.of 
the failure of all attempts that have been recently made, and 
of the falling off of friends, and dispiritingly admits that it 
is, at all events for the present, impossible to discover a cure 
for the confusion now prevailing amongst Protestants.! What 
Groen: will not, but which others, nevertheless, see clearly 
enough is, that the dogmatic Calvinism of the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries has in Holland, as elsewhere, died of 
theology, and that every attempt at its reanimation must 
begin with the suppression of theology. 

The Netherlands clergy have therefrom made the yoke of 
their Confessional Declarations as light as possible. The most 
important announcement on this subject is that which is 
stated at the conclusion of the General Synod in 1854: 
‘Since it is impossible, even in the shortest Confession of 
Faith, to unite all opinions and desires, so the Church allows 
variations from the symbolical writings, only excepting what 
is essential, namely, veneration for the Holy Scriptures, and 


1 GroEN, “ Le Parti Anti-révol.,” p. 108. Compare Preface, p. 1. 


PASTORAL FREEDOM. 201 


faith in the Redeemer of sinners. These must be held 
fast.”" 

With this, then, excellent care has been taken of the free- 
dom of the pastors to teach as they please; but the freedom 
of congregations, on the other hand, not to allow any unbe- 
lieving or erroneous-believing preacher to be forced upon 
them, is absolutely illusory; and in cases occurring within 
the last few years, in which congregations have preferred a 
protest against the pastor, the latter has always conquered.? 
“The congregations,” says Chantepie, “were treated as if 
they were sheep;” and this tyranny is complete! Besides 
this, the obligation, until recently in force, to preach upon 
the Heidelberg Catechism has been done away with by the 
Synod, and so has the last confessional ligature been torn to 
pieces. 

“At present,” says Molenaar, “everyone preaches and 
teaches what he likes.” At the same time the Synod, in its 
yearly meetings, and the Synodal Commission, speak of “ the 
doctrine of our Church;” whilst the general Synod gives to 
all questions, concerning the doctrine of the Church and the ~ 
confession of faith, evasive or equivocatory answers.? The 
unity of the Netherlands Church consists, according to 
Groen’s expression, only in this, that all its preachers are 
paid out of the same treasury; and “this chaos,” he adds, 
“should not any longer be called a Church.”4 

Dissatisfaction with the existing Church, its want of a 
creed, its general falling off from the doctrines of the age of 
the Reformation, and its entire absence of discipline, have 
led, since the year 1838, to the formation of a separate 
Church, under the guidance of the preachers Cock and 
Scholte. It is scattered in small congregations over the 
whole country. In the year 1853 its number was estimated 


1“ Berl. protest. Kirchen-Zeitung.” 1854, p. 846. 

* CHANTEPIE DE LA SaussAyk, ‘ Le Crise relig. en Hollande.” 
Leyden, 1860, p. 67. 

*** Beknopte Opgaaf van de verschillen Gevoelens.” Gravenhage, 
1856, pp. 88-92. 

4“ Le Parti Anti-révolutionnaire,” p. 106. 


202 DIVINE SERVICE. 


at 42,000; but even amongst these a division has already 
taken place, concerning a prime Calvinistic doctrine, upon “ the 
perfect consciousness of one’s own faith, as an essential sign 
of election.”! Other differences also prevail amongst them. 
Apart from the ‘“Cockyanys” (Coccianern) as they are 
called, as well as from the State Church, there exists a little 
religious community of perhaps thirty, called “ Congrega- 
tions under the Cross.” 

In Holland, also, almost the whole of the Divine service 
consists in exceedingly long sermons, which are very fre- 
quently read. The Communion is, as in other Calvinist 
Churches, administered only four times in the year; and the 
religious instruction of youth is, through the idleness of the 
preachers, left to “ catechism-masters,” persons who are also 
accustomed to carry on a trade. As in Scotland, so is it in 
the Netherlands, at least in several of the provinces—burial 
is not a religious act, so that cases of death are not even no- 
tified to the clergyman.? The custom of hiring seats in the 
church has also here had, as in other places, the effect of ex- 
cluding the poor from the church, but so much the more here 
because the number of churches is strikingly small. Rot- 
terdam, for example, with 104,000 inhabitants, has only 
four churches. If, in these circumstances, a want of reli- 
gious feeling is manifested, still, on the other hand, Protestant 
consciousness, on its negative side, is so much the more lively 
and vigorous. Even the English Bishop Burnet had re- 
marked it in his time: “ The chief thing which the preachers 
in Holland inculcate upon their people is a detestation 
against Arminianism. They seem much more anxious about 
this than about other most important subjects.”* - At present 
the Arminians have shrunk up into a small, weak group, 
whilst the great majority of the clergy of the Reformed 
Church think Arminian, but in some respects go far beyond 
the old Arminianism. The very numerous Catholics who, 
after their long depression, have been placed on a level with 

? REUTER’s ‘“ Repertorium,” vol. Ixxxvi. p. 147. 
? GOBEL’s “‘ Ref. Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1855, p. 266. 
* “ History of his own Time,” fol. ed., i. 689. 


PROSPECTS OF THE REFORMED CHURCH. 203 


the Protestants, are, however, the object of most attacks. 
Niebuhr had already remarked that an “ orthodox ” Calvinist, 
in his conviction of his own personal election (and of the rejec- 
tion of those of a different opinion), was a most irreconcile- 
able enemy. “One does not,” he says, in the year 1808, “‘ so 
much as mention the great poet Vondel, the only poet who 
does honour to the nation, and, indeed, immortal honour ; but 
he must not be spoken of, because he had become a Catholic.”! 

Since then this aversion has naturally increased—espe- 
cially since the organization of the Catholic Episcopacy, in 
the year 1853, which, in the same manner as in England, 
two years previously, had evoked a storm of indignation, 
that was sedulously cherished from the pulpits, and before 
which the ministry had to give way; and Groen and his 
followers flattered themselves with a great Protestant 
revival in the country. Ultimately, however, nothing was 
effected beyond the formation of five societies, partly to 
convert the Catholics to Protestantism, and partly to keep 
them down as much as possible, both as citizens and sub- 
jects. The religious life of Protestantism has derived no 
advantage from the great agitation, and the rent in its 
Church is as wide as it had previously been. 

Thus, then, the opinion entertained concerning the present 
state and future prospects of the Reformed Church in 
Holland, must be gloomy and disconsolate enough. Of its 
1500 preachers, it was a short time since publicly mentioned 
that 1400 were Unitarians or Socinians.? “If the present 
state of things continues,” says the preacher, Chantepie, “it 
is impossible for the Reformed Church to fulfil its mission 
(that of being the chief dam against revolutionary principles), 
for being itself in a state of dissolution, it must leave a free 
course to decomposing and destructive forces.”* Not less 
gloomy is the most recent description given of this state of 
things, which closes with these words: “The death-waters 


1 “‘ Nachgelassene Schriften,” p. 289. See his startling description of 
Dutch fanaticism, p. 266. 

2 Messner’s ‘‘ Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1860, p. 541. 

* « Deutsche Zeitschrift,” 1855, p. 206. 


204 PROTESTANT CHURCHES IN FRANCE. 


of Unbelief, Rationalism, Pantheism, and Materialism are in 
Holland, as in Germany, filtering through, and wasting 
away those protecting dykes—the Family, the State, and the 
Church.! No one knows what advice to offer, nor what aid 
to give. The disease has its seat even more in the clergy 
than the people. The bond of a common faith, and of a 
fixed doctrine, is wanting, and we may sum up the state of 
affairs in three short sentences :— 

1. Without a code of doctrine laid down in authoritative 
Confessions of Faith, a Church cannot long endure. 

2. The old confessional writings cannot be maintained, 
and are universally given up. 

3. To make a new Confession of Faith is impossible. 


PROTESTANT CHURCHES IN FRANCE. 


The Reformed, and (according to its origin) Calvinistic 
Church, in France, enjoys important advantages. In every 
thing which concerns its doctrine and ecclesiastical life, it. 
moves with the most complete freedom that can be wished 
for; and it enjoys, too, the prestige of nearly one hundred 
years’ endurance of oppression (down to the time of Louis 
XVI.), and of a severe and sometimes bloody persecution. 
By the Revolution of 1789, it was much less injured than the 
Catholic Church, which, for a long time, did not recover the 
heavy blows inflicted on it, or rather, it may be said that it 
is still bleeding from some of the wounds it then received. 
In comparison with it, Protestantism was treated very for- 
bearingly at the Revolution, and sometimes favoured as an 
ally. , 

With a community so small, so scattered, and so inun- 
dated by a great mass of Catholicity, one point has been 
always vigilantly attended to, namely: that exclusively 
Protestant ideas, and a sharp contest against all that is 
Catholic in doctrine and in practice, should be a principle of 
existence in this Church, which, if not firmly adhered to, the 
small religion must, inevitably, be absorbed in the greater. 


1 In Messner’s “ Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1861, 16th March. 


WANT OF INTERNAL UNITY. 205 


That the “ French” spirit is a “ Catholic” one, is said in 
France even by Protestants themselves. “ The feeling that 
it is so, prevails in the Evangelical Church of France,” 
writes a German correspondent, from Paris; “ it feels itself 
to be an exception to the general rule.”! But so much the 
more certainly might one expect all that is Protestant to 
gather around its banner, and close together its ranks, not 
merely maintaining a negative position, but advancing with 
a positive creed against the Catholic Church. 

The natural consequences of this position are, in so far, 
not to be mistaken, that among the French Protestants there 
is not to be found the slightest trace of an approximation 
towards Catholic doctrine, ideas, institutions, or observances 
—there is not a single French theologian, or preacher, has 
ever, so far as I know, fallen under the suspicion of having 
his thoughts turned in the same direction as numbers of the 
Tractarians and Anglo-Catholics in England. In France, 
they all are, in this sense, “extremely good and staunch 
Protestants.” The variation in tendencies, and the manifold 
conflicts within the heart of their own community, have not 
the slightest effect in preventing them from making war, with 
all their combined forces, upon their Catholic rivals. To no 
Protestant, believing in Christ, if he is a preacher, has the 
thought ever occurred that the believing Catholic stands 
nearer to him than the unbelieving or rationalistic member 
of his own Church. 

Internal want of unity, and distraction, among French 
Protestants are, at the same time, strikingly great; whilst a 
common dogmatic position, and a settled doctrine, are here 
as little to be looked for as in Holland. The causes for this 
state of things are, for the most part, to be found in the 
precedent history of this Church. Among all Protestant 
communities, Calvinistic as well as Lutheran—of the English 
Church we do not here speak—the French was the first in 
which the process of decomposition in the chief Protestant 
doctrines was completed. Previous even to 1685, and, 
therefore, before the great Protestant emigration commenced, 


1 HeENGSTENBERG’s “ Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1851, p. 866. 


206 MODERN FRENCH PROTESTANTS. 


the most important theologians, men like Cameron, Drelin- 
court, Mestrezat, Daillé, Testard, Amyrault, Leblane de 
Beaulieu, Jurieu, La Placette, had given up the old doctrine 
of “ Justification,” and the Dordrecht Articles (which had 
been at first accepted by their Church), as untenable; and, 
in Holland also, where, after the revocation of the Edict of 
Nantes, many of them had found an asylum, they con- 
tributed essentially to the undermining the Calvinism there 
existing. Thus the old Calvinist tradition of French Protest- 
antism was broken through towards the end of the seventeenth 
century, and never has there taken place any re-animation of 
original Calvinism. The more modern French Protestantism, 
as it has shaped itself within the last fifty years, has never 
attempted any dogmatic alliance with the historical past; and 
Adolf Monod, who was removed on the complaint of his 
consistory at Lyons, remained the only one who maintained 
the permanent validity of the old Confession of La Rochelle. 
The great majority of the clergy declared, in the year 1849, 
against this Confession, and would have, in fact, no Confes- 
sion, as the whole Reformed Church of France has no 
theology. The works of the older theologians are quite 
forgotten—a new theological literature has not been formed, 
and the theological writings of German Protestants have 
only obtained a very small influence. 

Since the year 1819, a “revival” has taken place; but it 
did not spring up in French soil—it was introduced from 
England and Switzerland, and partly by Methodist mission- 
aries—by these called “the awakened” Methodists, and to 
whom, in French Switzerland, is given the designation of 
the “Momiers.” The Methodism which has found its way 
into the French Protestant Church, through the “awaken- 
ing,” is described as being the chief cause of the weakness 
and wretched state of this Church. It is a dogma-destroy- 
ing sect. Under the pretext that a Church confession-of- 
faith is a mere form, which genuine Christianity ought to do 
without, it has abolished Confessions, it has set aside 
holidays, it has degraded the Communion into a mere love- 
feast, and it has cut out a pattern for “a new faith,” in 


RATIONALISM. 207 


accordance with the history of each person’s individual con- 
version. Methodism undermines all the bonds of political as 
well as social life in the community.' Such are the accusa- 
tions which the friends of French Protestantism are found 
to prefer against “the Evangelical party,” as it likes to call 
itself. 

Since then the French Reformers have fallen into two 
unequal divisions: those of “the believers,’ or “the 
awakened,” and the unbelieving, or the “indifferent.” The 
preachers are educated in some one of the three theological 
schools—at Geneva, Strasburg, and Montauban; of these, 
the two first are chiefly Rationalists, and the latter is so 
mixed that almost every professor represents a different 
opinion. 

There is, however, an older and a younger Rationalism in 
France, to be distinguished from one another. The older, 
whose representative may be taken to be Athanasius 
Coquerel in Paris, leaves to the Holy Scriptures the import- 
ance of being a Divine revelation, but breaks down or denies 
particular dogmas, and, before all things, will allow no 
settled, binding doctrine to be established. It will either not 
meddle with decided dogmas, or it places them altogether 
within the territory of individual selection. The negation 
of all authority is, with it, the essence of Protestantism. 
The more modern Rationalism is, on the other hand, essen- 
tially the historic-critical of the German school; or, as the 
believing Protestants say — “the destructive which has 
obtained its entrance into France through the theological 
faculty of Strasburg.” This particular division of Rational- 
ism is represented by the periodical published by Colani and 
Scherer, and is the only real theological periodical of French 
Protestantism. It is stated that in general a sceptical 
tendency is gaining more and more adherents among the 
younger clergy.2, Kven Grandpierre was compelled to con- 
fess, before the Berlin Assembly, that the Rationalistic or 


1 PrEssEL, “‘ Zustiinde des Protestantismus in Frankreich.” Tubingen, 
1848, p. 66, et seq. 
* MEssnEr’s “ Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1860, p. 48. 


208 WANT OF ANY COMMON DOCTRINE. 


latitudinarian element prevailed above the orthodox, and 
that most of the pastors and their congregations are going to 
sleep.! 

In the circle of “the awakened” a dissidence has gradu- 
ally grown up, and especially since 1848. This separa- 
tion of a number of preachers with their congregations has 
not had any origin in the relations that exist between the 
State Church and the power of the State. Freedom with 
respect to the State is certainly not wanting to the French 
Reformed Church. Its freedom is rather more complete 
than that of the Scotch Church. The ground of separation 
lay in the dogmatic indifferentism or latitudinarianism of the 
great majority of clergy and laymen. This came to light in 
a very striking manner, when the Protestants, immediately 
after the February Revolution of 1848, met together in a 
Synod, without the assent, and also without any prohibition 
from the government. They there found that a community 
which desired to lay claim to the name of a Church, must, 
before all things, possess a common doctrine, or be able to 
show a document of Confession of Faith. At the same time, 
the result of the debate was that the whole assembly ac- 
knowledged the impossibility of putting forth a Confession, 
and were obliged to come to the humiliating admission that 
their Church had, in fact, no common doctrine any more.? 
The old confessional declarations were abandoned, and the 
putting forth of a new form was evaded with the phrase— 
“that they would not diminish the liberty of the children 
of God by setting up any other authority than that of God’s 
own words.” 

This appeared to several preachers and laymen, amongst 
whom the Count Gasparin was distinguished, as an intolera- 
ble state of things, and they determined to leave the State 
Church, and to erect a “ Free Evangelical” Church. Three 
and twenty small congregations now form “the Union of the 


“* Verhandlung der Versammlung Stns oem Christen.” Berlin, 
1857, p. 123. 
* See the detailed report in Hencstensere’s “ K.-Z.,” 1849, p. 98, 
et seq: 


UNION OF THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH. 209 


Evangelical Church of France.”! These dissidents, who are, 
altogether, about three thousand, or a little more, are sup- 
plied with pecuniary means from England and Switzerland. 
They have nothing in common with one another but a dislike 
to the State Church, and a belief which assumes various 
colours and forms; and they are in so far inclined towards the 
Baptists, that they allow children to be left unchristened at 
the will of the parents, whilst declared Baptists are willingly 
received amongst them. It stands with this “ Union” very 
much as with the Evangelical Alliance. They are kept 
together—although an organization comprehending within it 
each individual does not substantially exist—yet they are 
united, not by what is positive, nor by one common Confes- 
sion, but by that which is negative. Since, however, the 
State bears the cost of the Reform Church, and pays the 
clergy of the State Church, the Secession which is limited to 
foreign resources is very weak in its supplies, as English and 
Swiss donors care much more for having their money laid 
out in the purchase of Catholic proselytes than in the forma- 
tion of Dissenting congregations. 

It has almost excited astonishment that Adolf Monod, 
who, according to Vinet, is the most important man belong- 
ing to French Protestantism,’ should have declared, notwith- 
standing his Calvinism, the intention of remaining in the 
Established Church. He has, indeed, animadverted severely 
on the “organized chaos” of this Church, in which, under 
the pretext of toleration, and freedom of thinking, not only 
the obligation, but even the very existence, of a positive 
doctrine is denied.* 

By the new Constitution which Napoleon III. gave to the 
Protestant Church of the Empire, the Reformers obtained 
their wished-for Presbyterian Council, and the Consistories 
emanating from it—at the same time, however, a Central 


1 They are enumerated in the ‘‘ Annuaire Protestant.” Paris, 1858, p. 
107. 


? That is, if we omit the statesman, M. Guizot. 
* See the pamphlet, ‘‘ Pourquoi je demeure dans Véglise établie.” 
Paris, 1849. 


P 


210. UNSETTLED STATE OF PROTESTANTISM. 


Council as the chief authority was established, that which 
was not desired by the majority. Again, since then, as 
formerly, a desire has arisen for a General Synod, from which 
they promise themselves great things. But the influential 
Protestants of Paris are exerting themselves to prevent the 
ealling of a Synod; for, they say, the Consistories already 
disagree,! and in a General Assembly discord would at once 
flame out amongst them; and all that would be done would 
be to present to Catholics the scandalous spectacle of a 
multiplicity and variety in Protestant opinions, whilst not a 
single important question would obtain a satisfactory deter- 
mination by an imposing majority. 

It is natural that such circumstances should provoke the 
bitterest complaints from seriously disposed men. In the 
most recent times it has been said, “That the present state 
of things has become intolerable?—that there exists no 
authority which might watch over clergymen, so that they 
should not preach unchristian doctrines.” It is admitted, 
“That the community of the Reformers in France, in its 
entire want of a Confession of Faith, and of every kind of 
discipline, is, in fact, no Church, but only ‘an Institution for 
the edification of non-Catholic Christians, founded by the first 
Napoleon’” The Church,” says an organ of still-believing 
Protestants,? “is on the path to individualism—it is all 
breaking and crumbling up into the opinions and views of 
individuals.” Every Consistory ordains preachers as it 
pleases,‘ and the person to be ordained is not even obliged to 
signify his agreement with the doctrines of the Church, for 
the Church has no doctrines; but he presents to the Con- 
sistory a Confession drawn up by himself, and so, if the 
authorities approve of this Confession, he is ordained.” Of 
the Consistories themselves Link had heard that only one 
fourth of them were Christian, since wherever there was an 

' Ling, p. 14. 

* MessnEr’s “ Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1860, p. 48. See also HenesTEen- 
BERG’s “‘ Kirch.-Ztg.,” 1851, p. 984. 

* The ‘‘ Espérance,” edited by GRANDPIERRE. 


* Ling, “ Kirkliche Skizzen aus dem Rivingélisohin Frankreich.” 
Gottingen, 1855, p. 22. 


A CHURCH WITHOUT CONFESSION OR DISCIPLINE. 211 


unbelieving pastor, the elders all joined him.! And every 
Consistory forms a Church of its own, completely indepen- 
dent of others—it is, in fact, “ keeping house” for itself.? 
Thus, then, it may be seen that State pay and the negation 
of Catholicity are the strongest bands that hold together the 
Reformed Church in France. This Church has no doctrine, 
no confession, no theology, no discipline; and its divine 
service is a cold performance, limited to a sermon, to some 
prelections by a clerk, and a psalm.* No one can be excluded 
from it. Noone can specify what are the principles by which 
it is governed, or how it governs itself. A German observer 
of these circumstances remarks concerning them: “It is, 
alas! but too true the reproach which the enemies of our 
Church are incessantly making with respect to it, viz., that 
there is nothing active in it but the spirit of dissension, and 
of individual caprice; and no other links than those of Pro- 


1 At the ‘ Alliance” meeting in Berlin, in 1857, the preacher Grand- 
pierre, of Paris, endeavoured to give the most favourable possible repre- 
sentation, and he declared, ‘‘One may certainly maintain that of the 
thousand Protestant pastors in France, of which there are 600 Reformed, 
300 Lutherans, 100 Independents, at least from 500 to 600 were 
orthodox” (the words are, of course, to be taken in the sense of the 
Alliance). But the official (and by the Protestant authorities themselves 
published) ‘‘ Annuaire” of the year 1858, contained a very different state- 
ment from the above. According to this authority there are 530 Reformed, 
253 Lutherans, and about 23 Independent preachers—altogether 806 
preachers. According to this may be judged whether the official statistics 
are correct. The last census gives the following numbers of the popula- 
tion: 480,507 Reformed, 267,825 Lutherans, making altogether 748,332 
Protestants. Kors (‘‘ Handbuch der vergl. Statistik ;” 2 Edit., p. 51) 
thinks that this statement is, by more than one-half, too small, and ‘‘is 
inclined” to give the numbers as 1,300,000 Reformed, and 700,000 
Lutherans. That would be, on the average, more than 2,000 souls to 
each preacher, whilst in France it is notorious that a great number of 
the congregations do not, at the utmost, count more than from 200 to 
300 members. The ‘‘ Annuaire,” whose publisher, from the completeness 
of its statistical notices, must be well informed as to the number of his 
co-religionists, is silent, and therefore confirms the accuracy of the 
Government returns. 

? PREsSEL, p. 36. 

’ KrENLEN, in “* Herzogs Encyclopiidie,” iv. 561. 


P2 


212 SWISS PROTESTANTISM. 


test and Negation cement together this mass of ‘malcon- 
tents.’”! Since then two other phenomena have occurred, 
which indicate the continuation of the process of decom- 
position. The Darbyite sect, which rejects every eccle- 
siastical office, and every remnant of Church order, and be- 
lieves in nothing but the private edification of the individual, 
or of a few, has found entrance among the French Pro- 
testants. In the South, and in Cevennes—as Gelzer had 
already perceived—a fragmentary sectarian spirit had gained 
the upper hand. Quakers, Wesleyans, “ inspired,” or the so- 
called “ Convertites,” or “ Strict Predestinarians,” and other 
sects, had found followers. In the congregational “con- 
genies,” for example, near Nismes, there were reckoned, a 
few years since, six sects. “If,” said a German reporter, 
“ we look steadily at the matter, as regards the future of the 
Church, the aspect of the French Protestant Church is such 
that it is as difficult to obtain a clear idea of it, as it is not 
to allow every hope respecting it to be depressed.? 





THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES IN SWITZERLAND. © 


In Switzerland the Protestant population stands in about 
the same relation to the Catholic as in the Netherlands. To 
about one million of Catholics there are about one million 
and a half of Protestants (in the year 1850, 1,417,916). 
Lutheranism is here unknown. The whole of Protestant 
Switzerland is “ reformed”—it is, or was at least, Calvinist ; 
its confession of faith, and standard of doctrine, were of the 
Helvetic Confession of the Heidelberg Catechism, the Dor- 
drecht Decisions, and the Consensus-formula—altogether 
genuine Calvinist documents. Berne, with 403,000; Zurich, 
with 243,000; Vaud, with 192,000 Protestants,’ must, when 
attention is devoted to ecclesiastical circumstances, come 
most into consideration. With the advantage of having 
given existence to the second chief form of Protestantism— 

1 PRESSEL, p. 35. 

2 * Protestantische Briefe aus Siidfrankreich und Italien.” Zurich, 
1852, p. 51. 

* According to the calculation for 1850, in Fryster’s “ Kirch. Statistik 
der. ref. Schweiz.” Zurich, 1854, p. 1. 


- 


STATE DOMINATION. 213 


of having shaped it out, and afforded it a dwelling-place, 
Switzerland ranks next to Germany as the classic ground 
and home of Protestantism. Berne and Zurich are, in 
respect to religion, as important as Wittenberg. From the 
plague of princely domination, which is so frequently to be 
regarded as the chief source of ecclesiastical corruption, the 
Swiss Church has, of course, remained free. It has had, in 
its political relations, only to do with republican, and, for- 
merly, with aristocratic authorities chiefly. Notwithstanding 
the similarity of doctrine, no attempt has ever been made to 
establish a collective Protestant Church in Switzerland. The 
clergy and the people felt no impulse to pass, in Church 
affairs, beyond the cantonal frontier limits, and the several 
governments did not like to have their ecclesiastical sove- 
reignty diminished. 

As elsewhere, so too in Switzerland, the Reformation 
placed the new Church under the control of the civil power. 
The Government seated themselves in the chairs of the 
Bishops. Zwinglius himself had given the administration of 
the Church to the Council of Zurich. In Berne the State 
domination over the Church was completely carried out. It 
was regarded as a branch of the public service; and the 
Bernese senators decided upon doctrine and rites, and deter- 
mined theological disputes, according to their own good 
pleasure, even though they did previously have the advice 
of theologians. Of a defined legal position of the Church 
towards the State there was no question;! and so early as 
the year 1837, the Professor Zyro, in Berne, made the 
accusation against the State: “That it had temporalized, 
and almost annihilated, the Church; and that the clergy 
had become the servants of the rich and the powerful.’ 

Thus, domination over the Church was inherited by the 
new governments that arose out of the storms of the year of 
revolutions. Frequently, under the influence of radicalism, 
so powerful in Switzerland, they maintained, in the most 

1 RoMANG, in ‘ Gelzers Mon.-Bliittern,” v. 90. 


2 ‘Die Evyangelisch ref. Kirche,” besonders im Kanton Bern., 1837, 
pp. 81-82. . 


~ 


214 DECLINE OF CALVINISM IN GENEVA. 


favourable circumstances, an attitude of indifference towards 
the Church, which they treated as a police institution. 

Geneva, the old metropolis of Calvinism, would now be 
scarcely recognized by Calvin himself. It is becoming more 
and more a Catholic city.!. “The faith of our fathers,” said, 
lately, Merle d’Aubigné, “now counts but a small group of 
adherents amongst us.” Calvin’s Church, with its definite 
doctrine and constitution, exists no more: it fell in the 
political revolutions of 1841 and 1846; and the new one is 
governed by a lay consistory, elected by an absolute majority 
of all Protestants. Confessions of Faith are abolished,? and 
the Church “grounds its belief on the Bible, and allows to 
every one the right of free inquiry.”* Among the clergy 
“prevails the most absolute confusion with respect to doc- 
trine.”* Under the influence of Methodism, which has found 
its way hence from England, Geneva has established, since 
1816, an “Evangelical Sect,” and out of this a “Free 
Church,” which rejoices in the consciousness of being a little 
band of “the elect,’ in the midst of a universal decadence. 
Still more serious have been the proceedings in the Canton 
de Vaud. Here, where the Government has always been, 
since the Reformation, and through it, in possession of a 
complete domination over the Church, the majority of the 
clergy, when power passed into democratic hands, found the 
yoke quite too oppressive; and especially so when the State 
Council, at one and the same moment, dispossessed forty- 
three preachers. Encouraged by Vinet, 180 clergymen, out 
of about 250, left the State Church. They were replaced 
by others, and the secessionists erected a “ Free Church,” 
which is inimically regarded by the population, and in twenty 
years has only obtained about 3,000 members, divided into 
forty little congregations. 


1 Of the 83,845 inhabitants of the Canton of Geneva, there are now 
42.355 Catholics, and 42,266 Protestants. In the year 1850 there were 
64,146 inhabitants, of whom 34,412 were Protestants, and 29,764 
Catholics. ? Messner’s “ K.-Ztg.,” 1861, p. 202. 

8 Genr’s ‘ Kirkliche und Christliche Zustiinde,” in ‘‘ Der Deutschen 
Zeitschrift,” i. 248. * Tbid., i. 2538. 


ABOLITION OF CONFESSIONS. 215 


The Heidelberg Catechism, with its eighty questions, has 
always been so carefully inculcated upon the Bernese people, 
that, according to the testimony of Romang, the pastor, 
“There is scarcely anywhere so decidedly an anti-Catholic 
people as the Bernese;”! and so much the easier was it, 
therefore, in the year 1847, to inflame the agitation against 
the Catholic “ Sonderbund” into a religious war. The object 
was attained. The Sonderbund has been annihilated; but 
the re-action had not been well calculated upon. It struck 
their own Church. Romang describes the immediate con- 
sequences: “ Zeller’s call; the increased indifference of the 
people towards religion; the falling off in attendance upon 
the churches; the impotency of the clergy, without corporate 
strength or authority, and whose main thought is to provide 
for themselves and their families; and then, the great evil, 
beyond all others—the entire want of an_ ecclesiastical 
authority, which formerly its Governments, and they only, 
exercised, but which the present Democratic Government 
neither can claim, nor has claimed.” 

Adherents to the Calvinistic doctrine no longer exist 
among the clergy of German Switzerland ; and even amongst 
the French they form, at the most, nothing more than a little 
clique. Of Confessional writings, or of a doctrine in accord- 
ance with them, there is no longer a word said. A Swiss 
theologian boastingly declares that “even believers now 
ask very little about a confession of faith, and seldom 
trouble themselves concerning the institutes of the Church.”? 
In the Cantons of Zurich, Glarus, St. Gall, Aargau, Geneva, 
Vaud, Thurgau, Appenzell, Basle, and Neuenburg, there is 
not a single old Protestant creed any longer in force. In 
the Canton of Vaud the abolition of the Helvetic Confession, 
in 1839, was the inevitable consequence of a decision, by 
which it was shown that only 9,000 citizens wished to retain it, 
whilst 12,000 desired its abolition. In Berne, the Grisons, 
and Schafthausen, the clergy are under an obligation to 
regulate themselves according to the principles, or funda- 


1 Gewzer’s “ M.-BI.,” v. 194. 
2 GuDER, in Gelzer’s ‘‘ Monats-Blittern,” vi. 121. 


216 MALADIES OF THE SWISS PROTESTANT CHURCH. 


mental doctrine, contained in the Helvetic Confession; and 
by it their freedom of teaching is very little limited. In St. 
Gall they promise to preach according to the Bible, in the 
spirit of the Reformed Church. It is, however, only in the 
city of Basle that the obligation is really acted upon. The 
two theological faculties in Zurich and Berne follow chiefly a 
creedless and destructive tendency. The school at Basle 
alone possesses, and still teaches, a positive theology; but it 
is, according to the estimate of it in Wette’s and Hagen- 
bach’s writings, nothing better than an “accommodating 
theology.” 

The position of the Swiss Protestant Church is worse 
than that of other countries. It suffers from two severe 
maladies—from Radicalism in the people, and from the un- 
belief, the spiritual unsteadfastness and shattered condition 
of the preachers. Among the clergy the influence of German 
literature and theology, and a decomposing process of Church 
doctrine, with its consequences, have become complete, so 
that every preacher is accustomed to preach what pleases 
himself, or what may be pleasing to his congregation. The 
more ancient Nationalism is no longer in possession of 
authority ;' and as to old positive Protestantism, it can 
only find a place for itself amongst “a knot of the congre- 
gation.”? The majority of the clergy naturally keep to what 
had been taught to themselves in Berne, or Zurich, or Basle. 
In the canton of Berne most of the clergy and of the Church 
authorities have openly taken part with the unbelieving 
Faculty. In the synod and other assemblies the believing 
clergy generally find themselves in a minority.2 On the 
other hand, Radicalism, which, for thirty years past, had 
sometimes by starts, through revolutions, and sometimes 
silently and gradually, by the diffusion of its destructive 
principles, obtained the mastery, has, beyond all other 
things, used and exercised its power in laying waste the 


1 Preirrer, ‘‘ Ueber die Zukunft der evangelischen Kirche in der 
Schweiz.” St. Gall, 1854, p. 21. 

2 * Gemeindlein in der Gemeinde.” Jbid., p. 28. 

* HenGsTenBere’s “ Kirch-Ztg.,” 1856, pp. 598-599. 


REPORT OF THE BERNE SYNOD. 217 


Church territory. It has made itself felt in the desolation 
of Churches, in the alienation of schools, in the extinction of 
the influence formerly possessed by the clergy. Unbelief 
has penetrated so deeply amongst the population, that, ac- 
cording to the report of the elders of a congregation in the 
town of Berne, “ of every ten householders there is scarcely 
to be met one who now believes in God and Christ, or makes 
any use of the Scriptures.”! “It is only a Church with a 
Catholic organization (unless by some extraordinary descent 
of the Holy Ghost) that could,” says the preacher Giider, 
“maintain itself against the attacks which Radicalism and 
a Radical Democracy have made upon it since they entered 
the lists to encounter it upon a soil that was already rotten.”? 

In the general report of the Berne Synod of the year 
1854, it is said :—“ We cannot any longer conceal from our- 
selves that some great thing is wanting to our public Divine 
service to meet the indispensable requirements of the present 
generation.” To recognise “this great something which is 
wanting,” there is no need, as the Report considers, of “ an- 
other new Pentecost.” It suffices to look steadily at the 
picture which another Swiss preacher has drawn of Divine 
service in that country. “Our worship,” he says, “is that 
of a mere teaching school—our churches are lecture-halls, 
with naked walls, and destitute of a sanctuary; and these 
churches are constantly closed, with the exception of a few 
hours on the Sundays; and yet they are the only public 
memorials still left us of our religion! Preaching is, in fine, 
the one thing, and everything in our Divine service. The 
rest has been abbreviated as much as possible, and limited to 
a few verses of a hymn and some formal prayers. It is from 
the pulpit only that the clergyman can speak before or to 
his congregation. There he remains during the whole of the 
Divine service; and the congregation are always sitting or 
standing, but never kneeling: they have nothing to do but 
to listen, and allow themselves to be talked to.”? 

* Getzer’s “ Mon.-Bl.,” iv. 149. ? Gexzer’s ‘‘ Mon.-Bl.,” iv. 124. 


* VOGELIN, “* Welche Verinderungen und Verbesserungen sollten in 
unserm Cultus vorgenommen werden?” Frauenfeld, 1837, p. 34, et seq. 


218 CONFESSIONS OF THE CLERGY. 


This picture is completed by another of the same class 
and country. “The clergy,” he says, “are mostly mere 
orators in the pulpit, and not shepherds in the midst of their 
congregation. The weekly Divine service is dying out. In 
many districts not one-eighth, and sometimes not a tenth of 
the population any longer go to Church.”! It must be ad- 
mitted that for some time back it has been with the Church 
and religion “all down hill,” (“bergab”). And yet, so early 
as the year 1837, a distinguished theologian and public 
teacher pronounced upon the clergy of his country this judg- 
ment: “The clergy appear to present in themselves the 
image of our Protestant Church, the image of a predominant, 
one-sided, selfish capacity, which only rejoices in itself, will 
alone know itself, and solely seeks for what is its own self- 
interest,” &c.? 

When the Swiss clergy in their meetings have expressed 
their opinions respecting the state of their Church, they 
have done so in a tone not alone disconsolate, but also 
accusatory against the Church itself. Thus Giider confesses, 
at the Paris Assembly of the Evangelical Alliance in the 
year 1856: “Our religious position is very humiliating, and 
very well suited to urge us to repentance. The pastor 
Meyer declares in his Report made at the meeting of “the 
Preachers’ Society,” at St. Gall, in 1859: “The tendency of 
the time is no longer towards the Church, but to pass by 
the Church; and the fault of this lies on the Church, and 
upon its own contradictory conduct. To-day, for example, 
it contends against the Baptists, and to-morrow it will offer 
them its hand in the ‘ Alliance.” The Protestant Church 
is so great, and the Protestant spirit is so small.‘ 

In the year 1849, Professor Ebrard, who had been engaged 
several years in Switzerland, wrote concerning this country: 
‘The state of the Church in Switzerland is a melancholy 
one; it is a Cesaro-Popedom of the sovereign people, who 


1 Gewzenr’s * Monats-Blitter,” iv. 160. 

? Zyro, ‘‘ Die Kirche im Canton Bern.,” p. 102. 

3 “* Conférence de Chrétiens Evang.” Paris, 1856, p. 300. 
* Heng@sTENBERG’s ‘ Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1859, p. 917. 


PROTESTANTISM IN AMERICA, 219 


will have their religion made just what pleases them. In 
the Vaudois there are oppression and persecution of the Free 
Church—a total corruption of the State-Preaching Esta- 
blishment. In the other cantons, as a young Christian friend 
lately wrote to me, “there are merely two trifling things 
wanting to the Free Church—flocks and shepherds; of dogs 
and wolves there is a superfluity.”! 

The position of the clergy of Protestant Switzerland, 
French as well as German, is, in such a state of affairs, not 
enviable. To religious indifference and the materialistic 
tendency of mind in the people, is added the plague of sects. 
New Baptists, New Believers, or Béhmists, Antonians, for 
whom there is no law and no sin any more, Mormonites, 
Irvingites, Darbyites have found entrance; and yet the 
character of the people, and the prevailing tendency, is not 
favourable to sects. It is so much the worse for the clergy, 
that in some cantons the clergy hold their appointment only 
during pleasure; or they must, after a few years, subject 
themselves to a new election; so that, like the Dissenting 
preachers, they are wholly dependent on the favour of the 
more influential members of the congregation. There are also 
complaints of a continual deterioration in their worldly 
position, which is so bad, that lately in the daily papers the 
question was discussed whether it was proper that clergy- 
men’s daughters should be publicly advertised for as house- 
maids.” 


PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS IN THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA, 


No State or National Church, and nevertheless a general 
profession of Christianity. Such is the first fact that strikes 
us with reference to religion in the Eastern States of North 
America. No one would in that country venture openly 
to proclaim himself an infidel. It belongs, among the higher 
and middle classes, to the tone of good society, and to the de- 


1 ScHaFr’s * Deutscher Kirchenfreund.” Mercersburg, 1849, p. 272. 
2 -¢ Protestantische Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1856, p. 138. 


220 ADHERENTS OF THE “ BIG CHURCH.” 


corous conduct of life, to be a Christian. There does not, 
therefore—or there did not till very lately—exist such a thine 
as a literature of Atheism, Pantheism, or Materialism. A 
religious atmosphere is diffused over the whole country, from 
which no one can venture to withdraw himself; and this ma- 
nifests itself especially in the strict observance of the Sun- 
day, in the extraordinary number of churches! and meeting- 
houses, and in a diligent attendance at them; in the ener- 
getic, emulous activity of the various religious parties, in 
their efforts for missions, and in the number of religious 
periodicals. Irreligion, or contempt of religion, is there only 
displayed by the Germans, and contributes much to the con- 
temptuous manner in which the Anglo-American looks down 
upon Germans. 

In the West, indeed, over which the great stream of emi- 
gration from Europe and the Eastern States is pouring itself 
in a full flood, the case is quite different. There are, in the 
West, regions where nine-tenths of the population belong to 
no Church at all, who are not even christened, and do not 
get their children baptized or instructed in the Christian re- 
ligion.2. Many there will answer to the question, as to what 
Chirrch they belong to, by saying, “I belong to the big 
Church,”—that is to say, “I, as a free Adnerieust believe as 
much or as little as I like; and I can get on very well my- 
self with my Bible, and do not need the crutches of any re- 
ligious society, nor the sectarian coloured glasses through 
which they compel their readers to read it.” For, as a rule, 
every American holds the Bible in respect, and in the West, 
also, the Germans are the only prophets of unbelief. The 
name of the “ big Church” is indeed Legion, for, in a popu- 
lation of twenty-nine millions, the number of recognisable 
Christians, who, by taking part in the Communion, show 
themselves to be really members of a Church, can be esti- 
mated at the utmost at not more than five millions.’ 


1 Which, indeed, according to Loéuer, all look like private chapels. 

? RAuscHENBUSCH, “‘ Die Nacht des Westens.” Barmen, 1847, p. 45. 

*>Scnarr’s “ Bericht in den Verhandlungen der Versammlung- 
Evang.” Christen. in Berlin, 1857, p. 234. 


CONSEQUENCES OF THE VOLUNTARY PRINCIPLE. 221 


Each of the larger sects is divided, namely, into two classes 
—into the majority, who outwardly profess to belong to it— 
or, as it is said there “stand under its influence,” and who 
attend divine service regularly, or tolerably so—and into the 
minority, who are really full members. If we subtract from 
these the Catholics, of 2,400,000 souls, there remain about 
2,600,000 Protestants, of about seventy sects and denomina- 
tions, who make full use of the means of religion offered by 
their respective sects.! 

According to this there are about twenty-four millions, a 
part of whom are entirely without religion, and a part who 
attend the meetings of a sect regularly or occasionally. Of 
these, many are not christened, and all naturally refrain from 
Communion, which they may do much the more easily 
that the views of Zwinglius respecting it prevail over the 
whole of Protestant America. It has been calculated, indeed, 
that there is one preacher for every thousand persons, but 
the proportion is quite differently arranged; most of the 
preachers have very small congregations; 1239 congrega- 
tions of Old Presbyterians have not above fifty members 
each—1907 between 50 and 100, and only 736 above 100. 
Of the Congregationalists, 696 have fifty, 1219 up to 100, 
and 750 above 100, and that in the great towns.2 _ 

The consequence of this is, great poverty of the preachers 
and their families; and the complaint that the clergy are 
worse paid in America than in any other country, cannot 
excite any surprise. How great is the number of those who 
keep aloof from every religious exercise may be gathered 
from the fact, that in all the churches of New York only 
205,580 persons find room, and 638,131 are excluded. The 
most moderate estimate is, that above the half of all the 
poorer people in America belong to no religious community.‘ 

1 The author has corrected this statement He mentions, in a note to his 
Introduction, that, misled by an estimate in Scuarr’s book upon “ North 
America,” he had calculated the church-going members of the different 
Protestant sects much below what they must be ; and is, upon reflection, 
disposed to double the number which he had, at first, supposed them 
to be. 2 Krause’s “ Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1856, p. 430. 


3 Messner’s ‘ Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1861, p. 238. 
4 MarsHALv’s “‘ Notes on the Episcopal Polity,” London, 1844, p. 501. 


222 WANT OF A PEOPLE’S CHURCH. 


Theseare theconsequences of “the voluntary principle;” thus 
does the want of a National Church avenge itself. This is and 
must be the result of the rule of the sectarian system; for if 
millions receive the impression that they may choose their 
Church and their religion freely, out of a variegated crowd 
of denominations, some will allow their choice to be deter- 
mined by some one accidental circumstance. The majority, 
however, will put an end to the painful condition of uncertain 
hesitation by indifferent neutrality, and tranquillize their 
conscience with the reflection that among so many assumed 
brides there is really no lawful spouse ; that they are, in fact, 
all only concubines, who can make no real claim to the fidel- 
ity and devotion of a free man.! 

The state of Christianity in America is an awful and serious 
warning, and will in future become still more so. The 
want of a people’s Church which receives everyone in his 
infancy, incorporates him with itself by baptism, and draws 
him into one common life-giving atmosphere, is a want that 
cannot be supplied by anything else. The condition which 
Europe would not like to realise for herself she has transplanted 
to America; for America has become the rendezvous of all 
the sects and divisions of Protestant Europe. 

One of the worst consequences of this want is seen in the 
American school system, from which every kind of religious 
instruction is excluded. The Bible may be used as a reading 

' Thus H. Seymour TreMENHEERE, in his “ Notes on Public Subjects 
made during a Tour in the United States” (London, 1852, p. 51), relates, 
on the authority of the Protestant clergyman, Edson, at Lowell : “‘ The 
young people who stream into Lowell, as workers from the neighbouring 
States, are usually without the slightest knowledge of Christian doc- 
trine, and utterly indifferent as to what sect they shall belong to, since they 
think all religions really pretty much alike. In other respects they are gene- 
rally well instructed, though very lax in their ideas of morals and duty. 
Among the children who had received some religious instruction, Edson 
found that there was seldom any point inculcated as resting on authority ; 
but that all doctrines were treated rather as the results of individual 
views, and to a great extent left to the child to decide. It is evident that. 
the Americans have a faculty for logic.” Edson adds, however, that this 
want of all authority in the education of children is now universally 
acknowledged to be a great evil. 


GODLESS SYSTEM OF EDUCATION. 223, 


book, but no word of explanation added to it by the teacher 
and no prayer be uttered.! If Sectarianism had brought 
on America no other curse than such a school system, which 
accustoms the youth of thecountry to regard lifeand knowledge 
on the one side, and religion on the other, as two completely 
separate and independent territories—such teaching must suf- 
fice to render it one of the greatest calamities of the New World. 
The bitter discovery is now being made in America, that an 
education destitute of a Christian spirit is not merely defec- 
tive; it is positively injurious, and trains up men to make 
them cold, calculating scoundrels.2 The Sunday schools that 
have been introduced are no sufficient substitutes for the ab- 
sence of Christian parish schools. May Europe be terrified 
by the melancholy fruits that this system has borne in Ame- 
rica, and which it will at a future time bring forth yet more 
abundantly, by following in the same path. 

The separation of Church and State was really effected by 
the unbelieving Jefferson and his followers, who coincided 
with his views; and it was effected by a man who flattered 
himself that in the course of another generation all America 
would be Unitarian. By this separation it is forbidden to 
the Government and its officers to interfere in any way in 
the affairs of religious communities. 

They have gone further, however. The constitution pro- 


1 Religious-minded Americans express the greatest dissatisfaction and 
indignation at this godless system of education. The ‘Mercersburg 
Review” calls it ‘‘ Our ten-times helpless, wretched, and ruinous Common 
School system” (v., p. 41). A work by Cotwett on the subject, ‘‘ The 
Position of Christianity in the United States” (Philadelphia, 1854, p. 
98) says, ‘‘The exclusion of Christianity from the public education of 
this country is a suicidal arrangement—the worst enemy of humanity 
could think of nothing more destructive to the Republican institutions 
of the country,” &c., &c. The same arrangement, as it is well known, 
exists in Holland, and is there also most bitterly complained of; for 
example, by the Baron v. Lynden, at the meeting of the Evangelical 
Alliance at Berlin, 1857. As long, however, as in both countries the 
same cause, namely, excessive Church dissensions exists, complaints and 
mutual recriminations will remain fruitless. 

2 See the energetic words of an American theological periodical, the 
Presbyterian ‘‘ Bibliotheca Sacra,’ 1851, p. 763. 


9224 SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 


vides, that no profession of religious faith shall be made by 
any candidate for a public office ;! that the Congress shall 
make no law respecting the protection of any religion,’ or to 
prohibit the free exercise of any. The whole document 
ignores the existence of Christianity. Story, the American 
Blackstone, states it as his opinion, in his Commentary, that 
it is doubtless the duty of every government to cherish and 
encourage Christianity by all means; but that by those re- 
gulations it was intended to prevent all rivalry between 
Christian sects, and the rise of a national Church which 
should turn the patronage of the Government to the ex- 
clusive benefit of its hierarchy. On the other hand, in in- 
dividual States—for instance in Pennsylvania—the Bible 
and the Sabbath are placed formally under the protection of 
the law, and people may be brought before a magistrate for 
using blasphemous expressions. In Massachusetts it has 
even been decided by a court of justice that, according to the 
laws, the murder of an unbeliever (an infidel) was no crime.‘ 

Allare of the religious parties and communities of England 
that, since the seventeenth century, have taken root here— 
partly to escape oppression at home, and partly in the natural 
progress of colonisation. As the Anglo-Saxon race is the 
prevailing one, so is also the Anglo-Saxon religious system, 
the product of the long mutual struggle and contest be- 
tween Calvinism and Episcopalianism—between the Associa- 
tion Church and the State Church; andit is the preponderating 
element which has extended its influence over the other im- 
migrant nationalities, and the forms of faith and church dis- 
cipline they brought with them. One only—the Catholic 
Church—has kept itself aloof from all such influence, in so 
far as it might have suffered any change from it. 

All Churches, or religious communities, have, therefore, 
complete equal rights. very person can join any sect he 
pleases, or belong to none, or found a new sect for himself. 


1“ Mercersburg Review,” iii. 329. 

2 Respecting an establishment of Religion ” 
3 ** Mercersburg Review,” iii. 331. 

* “ Atlantiische Studien,” iii. 65. 


COMPETITION OF SECTS. 225 « 


As in politics, in trade, and in all other occupations, so also 
in the domain of religion, the freest competition prevails, and 
produces energetic action and elasticity of Church organism, 
combined, however, with an indecorous grasping at, and 
hunting after, proselytes, which forcibly contrasts with the 
passive tranquillity and stagnation of State Church bodies. 
For their practical skill in spreading these nets, and drawing 
on the masses, the Methodists appear to excel all others ; but 
so much the more are the others obliged to concentrate their 
forces, keep their followers together, and endeavour to procure 
new proselytes. The mere prospect of being supported in 
case of falling into distress, brings in troops of converts. 
The art of getting money for religious purposes is here care- 
fully cultivated ; and for their talent in making money out of 
everything, and therefore also out of religion, the Americans 
certainly surpass all other nations. By exercising a kind of 
moral pressure that gives no offence, and leaves the appear- 
ance of voluntary action, they know how to incite crowds of 
people to bestow religious contributions—these, too, being 
persons who, if left to themselves, would give nothing. Their 
success in this way is truly extraordinary. 

Upon everything that is Christianly is laid a blessing, 
which, in its integrity and entirety, never is utterly lost, and 
never can be perverted into a curse. No matter how defec- 
tive may be its form, nor with what manifold errors disfigured, 
nor how much by human passion and perversity deformed 
and degraded, still that which is Christian will accomplish an 
incalculable amount of good. Tocqueville has eloquently re- 
marked how much America owes to the serious sense of 
religion, and the Church discipline, which the Puritans 
brought with them from England and naturalized in their 
new home. This was the merit of the three great Puritan 
parties—Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists— 
which, towards the end of the last century, had the spiritual 
control of North America. Since then the Methodists are to 
be added to the others; and as they have addressed themselves 
to the lowest and most forlorn of the community, have attained 
considerable success. These four chief forms of American 

Q 


226 AMERICAN IDEA OF SECTARIANISM. 


Protestantism—and beside them the Episcopal Church, which 
has, in the most recent time, greatly increased in strength— 
are, accordingly, the main supports of the religious feeling 
which still exists among native Americans. Those chief 
parties themselves are, indeed, split up into a greater number 
of sects, though certain common features and tendencies have 
remained among them. The swarm of other sects, however 
(a short time ago a list, amounting to above seventy names, 
was made out of those in New York alone'), possesses small 
positive influence—at least among the higher and middle 
classes—whilst it must be considered as weighing heavily in 
the scale, when its effect is to weaken faith in one firm 
Christian truth, and to aid in the generation and nourishment 
of sceptical andi foraven: 

The prevalent opinion in America is not unfavourable to 
sectarianism—on the contrary, it is regarded rather as an 
advantage. The idea of a Church, of belonging to a 
Church, or the duty of belonging to a Church, does not 
exist for the American. He knows that he is one of a sect, 
a member of a denomination, which does not exist any- 
where else in the whole world—unless perhaps in England 
or Scotland. As a rule, he entertains the firm conviction 
that the Anglo-Saxon race is the chosen one of modern 
times—the conservator of true religion, appointed by God. 
Of the past history of Christianity, if he ever thinks of it all, 
he has the idea that there have always existed a great num- 
ber of sects, a variegated assortment of ecclesiastical bodies ; 
and that, therefore, a Church established by Christ either 
never existed, or has long since been dispersed into various 
sects. He thinks, therefore, naturally, that, in the absence 
of the whole still unbroken vessel, we must content ourselves 
with fragments; and that one of these pieces is not much 
better or much worse than another, but that every particle 
has still something of the original vase left in it; or 
Christianity is supposed to be like a forest, in which many 
different kinds of trees stand near to one another, and receive 


alike light and life. 
1“ Darmstadter K.-Zeitung,” 1857, p. 1150. 


CONDEMNATION OF THE SYSTEM. 227 


According to the prevailing view, therefore, the govern- 
ment ought not to favour one religious Confession and dis- 
courage another; it must maintain an equally neutral and 
indifferent attitude with reference to all religious com- 
munities, as long as they do and teach nothing contrary to 
the laws of the country. 

In the eyes of politicians, advocates, and literary men, the 
chief advantage of the present state of affairs consists in this, 
that “the sects, by their mutual jealousy, keep one another 
in check,” as the “ New York Observer” remarks. It ap- 
pears to them a great gain that there is in America no 
National Church, and no religious authority. True religious 
freedom—to which belongs, before all things, the freedom to 
do altogether without religion—is, they think, best secured 
by the existence of many different sects. 

In the meantime, there are still Bible readers in the country, 
and they happen sometimes to hit upon those passages in 
which Christ speaks so clearly and energetically of the one 
visible Church, and of the unity of his disciples ; and the conse- 
quence is! that the formal justification of the sectarian system, 
such as used to be promulgated in former years, is now 
seldom heard. On the contrary, the most distinguished 
theologians and Christians agree in their condemnation of 
the sectarian system, and in the opinion that it is a disease 
which all ought to be anxious to cure. The sectarian 
system, says one of the best of American periodicals, is, in 
its very innermost nature, a horror. The whole world knows 
that the relation of our sects to each other is much more one 
of rivalry, opposition, and jealosuy than of brotherly love 
and harmonious co-operation. It was said of the primitive 
Christians, “See how they love one another;” but of the 
modern American sects it might be said, “ See how they hate 
one another.”? And the worst is, that even those who con- 
demn this disunion, are compelled by circumstances, and by 


1 Scuarr’s “ Deutscher Kirchenfreund fiir die Amerikanisch-deutschen 
Kirchen.” Mercersburg, 1848, p. 141-47. 
2 *« Mercersburg Review,” v. 584. 


Q 2 


228 “DENOMINATIONAL DIVISIONS. 


* the law of self-preservation, to identify themselves more or 
less with the denominational and sectarian spirit. 

“‘ All depends upon sect there,” says a German observer, 
‘and a preacher can only make way as a sectarian. The 
enlargement of one’s own sect is the grand business to which 
every other must give way.!. A man will pay 500 dollars a 
year for the maintenance of his sect, which consists of five 
members and a preacher.” A travelling preacher, who has 
been converted in the Methodist fashion, will preach to the 
congregations in his circuit, against cther preachers, who have 
not been converted in the same fashion.? Even the peace- 
loving Quakers, who continue united in England, are in Ame- 
rica split up into parties. It seems as if in this country, of 
the freest political movement, men found it indispensable to 
have their religious feelings compressed into the tightest 
possible sectarian stays—and as if they inhaled the spirit of re- 
ligious dispute in the very air. Scarcely has a German congre- 
gation been formed among a body of new Protestant emigrants, 
than they begin to wrangle and quarrel among themselves.‘ 

The conviction has forced itself even on Protestant clergy- 
men of America, that “the land of freedom” is, in fact, the 
most intolerant country of the world—that it is the spirit of 
intolerance that has multiplied divisions like a plague of 
locusts.’ The religious history of our country, says Colton, 
“is characterised by a constant boasting of religious free- 
dom, and an untiring effort to crush it.” 

A solid scientific theology is impossible for America in its 
present state. Every theologian, or every one who might 
have a vocation for the cultivation of theology, belongs to 
some special sect, and finds himself more or less subject to 
the tyranny, or at least to the influence, of his denomination. 
His sect is a kind of make-shift hovel, hammered together, by 
narrow-minded men, out of fragments of doctrine, and it will 
afford him neither space, nor light, nor air for a theological 


1 Burrner “ Die Vereinigten Staaten,” i. 247-346. 

2 BuTTNER, i. 283. * Burtne, i. 341. * Burryer, i. 357. 

’ Cotton’s ‘* Thoughts on the Religious State of the Country,” pp. 
204-5. 


ASSERTIONS OF BIBLICAL PURISM. © 229 


flight. Nevin, the only living American theologian of any . 
importance, confesses that American theology, with all its 
pretentious and pious-sounding phrases, is, for the most part, 
mere school-boy pedantry compared with the German.! 
The only man, besides Nevin, who had in him the material 
and the vocation to make an eminent theologian, was 
William Ellery Channing, a preacher of Boston. But his 
profound aversion to the Calvinistic system, that “libel on 
his Heavenly Father,” as he called it, and the destructive 
effects of which he saw everywhere around him, filled him 
(who had had no opportunity of becoming acquainted with a 
better theology) with a hatred to the theology of his own 
time, and made him a Unitarian.? 

A work on the religious parties of America, which appeared 
in 1844 (and was considerably amplified in 1848), gives an 
outline of each of the sects, drawn up by one of themselves.® 
It appears from these, that almost all, however narrow may 
be the enclosure within which they have hedged themselves, 
however deplorably small their fraction of Christianity, still 
each declares that the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but 
the Bible, is the source and standard of its doctrine and 
institutions. Every one boasts of having kept conscien- 
tiously to the New Testament, and carefully endeavoured to 
puff away from its garment every particle of Church tradition. 
This Biblical purism, then, whose first axiom is the absolute 
clearness and transparency of the Scriptures, and that can 
quote chapter and verse for every article of its sectarian 
faith, has already produced in America more than fifty 
different sects! And since, almost every year, one or more 
new “Churches” arise, their partisans always know how 
to point precisely to this or that Bible text, which makes it 
impossible for conscientious Christians to join any one of 
the fifty or sixty already existing “ Churches,” and renders it 


1“ Mercersburg Review,” ii. 165. 

* See the expressions used in the 2nd vol. of ‘‘ Memoirs of W. E. 
Channing,” and particularly pp. 134-135. London, 1850. 

*D. Rupp, ‘ Original History of the Religious Denominations.” 
Harrisburg, 1848, 2nd edition. 


230 THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 


imperatively necessary to found a new one. Creeds, sym- 
bolic books, are either entirely rejected, since with the Bible 
they are superfluous, and they do not well agree with it, as the 
“ Campbell Baptists” say; or they must, as the Congrega- 
tienalists declare, be themselves measured by the Bible.! 
Several of the modern sects proclaim that they have been 
founded for the express purpose of re-establishing the 
original unity of the Church, an object which can only be 
attained by raising the Bible to be the sole standard. Each 
one of the sister sects had, indeed, proposed to keep closely 
to the Bible, but had not, it is said, remained true to its 
principles. The new one alone is the one that is to do so in 
earnest. As often as a new party branches off from the old, 
the separation takes place according to their assurance; 
because the old sect, notwithstanding its exclusive devotion 
to the Bible, has submitted to unbiblical “ traditions,” and so 
has afforded an opportunity for inaccurate interpretations. 

We find, therefore, in so far, an agreement among the Ame- 
rican sects, that each one starts with the same proposition as 
to the all-sufficiency of the words of the Bible, and the denial 
of any ecclesiastical authority and continuity. Each one has 
inscribed upon its banner the motto, “The open Bible, and 
the sovereignty of private judgment.” The Bible—this is 
the universal theory—is perfectly clear to every human being 
endowed with common understanding; special studies and 
previous knowledge are not necessary; a person reads, and 
he may and must believe that the sense he finds is the 
only true one, and that he has perceived it by help of the 
Holy Ghost. This right of private judgment is declared to 
be the Palladium of the Gospel, the only alternative if we 
do not wish to submit to an infallible authority.?_ In reality, 
however, no single one of these sects permits the individual 
to make use of this right. Every sect has its own system, 
and compels the Bible text to express its views; every one of 
them rejects from its bosom—at least, according to theory— 
any member who should prefer his own judgment on a passage 

1 Rupp, p. 224, 281. 

? See, for instance, ‘‘ Cumberland Presbyterians.”—Rupp, p. 512, 


NEGLECT OF SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY. 231 


of the Bible, to the interpretation accepted by the community 
to which he belongs. 

Several of the American sects maintain that they have 
separated themselves from the older denomination, to escape 
the “scourge of a human Confession of Faith.” In fact, 
however, these sects are all prisons of the mind; every one 
has its own—mostly very meagre and narrow-minded—tradi- 
tion and observances. 

A sect is, by its nature, the instinctive enemy of every 
scientific theology. It is conscious of being short-lived, of 
having no connecting current with the great river-stream of 
the Church, which has been pouring down through centuries 
of time; and the sect is, therefore, filled with aversion to the 
entire ecclesiastical past. Thus, for instance, the Baptists 
of six principles say, “A true member of their community 
does not trouble himself as to whether its doctrines are found 
to have existed in the various ages of the Church: it is 
sufficient for him that Christ has announced them.”! The 
chief. sect of Baptists even takes a pride in not troubling 
itself about the ancient doctrines of the Church. With 
respect to ecclesiastical tradition, the sects are accustomed 
to keep to these principles: that a tradition is so much the 
more worthless as it is older and more generally diffused—and 
worth so much the more as it is younger, and most peculiar to 
their sect. The brief past of their own sectarian life, with its 
inventions and arrangements of yesterday, becomes thencefor- 
ward a chain that binds every one under penalty of expulsion. 

Another feature common to the more modern sects is, 
rejection of infant baptism. Some, like the Baptists of the 
Seventh Day, have discovered that the New Testament con- 
tains nothing about a transference of the Sabbath to the 
Sunday, and, therefore, regard the observance of the 
Saturday as a Sabbath as absolutely necessary.2 They and 
others see, also, in “ the foot-washing,” a sacrament appointed 
by Christ. Further, the sacraments are, with almost all 
American sects, not vehicles or operative means of grace, 
and pledges of what God bestows on us; but they are 

' Rupp, p. 88. 2 Rupp, p. 121. 


232 UNANIMITY IN ONE ARTICLE OF FAITH. 


lowered into symbols of what passes in man, or they are 
mere signs, intended to remind men of a certain event, or to 
awaken in them a certain feeling. Germanism (that is 
German theology) and Popery are in general the two powers 
especially dreaded, and alike hated, by the American sects.! 
About twelve sects profess to be established, not merely 
on the basis of the Bible, but also on that of the Westminster 
Confession—so that this Confession, although the most com- 
plete and theologically definite among the Calvinistic creeds 
—one, too, that far excels, for instance, the Augsburg Con- 
fession, in point of clearness and plain speaking, has neverthe- 
less not been able to prevent a number of subdivisions taking 
place, even within the narrow circle of American Calvinisin. 
In one article there is still very general unanimity. “ Jus- 
tification by Faith alone” has been inscribed on the banner 
of all the “ Evangelical” sects. Thus, the Campbellites, for 
instance, declare that the one great condition of admission 
to their community is a “perfect trust in the merits of 
Christ alone for justification.” Their sect has been estab- 
lished on the two fundamental doctrines of the Reformation 
—rejection of all tradition, and a reliance on faith alone.’ 
With this solifidianism, by which the righteousness of Christ 
is placed quite externally to the account of believers, another 
proposition is connected, extremely important to sectarian life, 
and on which rests the whole theory of “ Revivals.” The 
man who is justified by mere faith, and the imputation of 
the righteousness of Christ, is conscious of this fact with 
infallible certainty. He has an “ experience” of his conver- 
sion, or of being taken into a state of grace, and can point 
out the precise moment of his passage from death to life. 
The Americans have, therefore, arranged their “ conversions” 
in a very business-like manner. Several preachers and laymen 
enter into an association, and begin to operate upon an 
assembly of persons, who desire to be converted. By long- 
continued exciting preaching, by stormy addresses to indi- 
viduals, by hymns with lively rattling airs, by threats, with 
dreadful descriptions of the torments of hell, by entreaties, 
1“ Mercersburg Review,” i. 517. 2 Rupp, p. 225. 


MACHINERY OF REVIVALS, 233 


supplications, and passionate apostrophes, men and women are 
so agitated and wrought upon that they are eventually broken 
down. The mental and bodily exhaustion to which men, and 
especially women, are reduced by such means, produces a 
passive state, in which they feel everything they are desired 
to feel. Attacks of bodily illness, involuntary exclamations, 
pass for pledges of grace, and certain signs of victory over 
“the old man.” The state of complete relaxation and 
weakness which naturally follows these stormy emotions 
and spasmodic convulsions is considered as “ peace of mind 
from assurance of salvation.” When any one has been so far 
worked upon as to be induced to seat himself on the “ peniten- 
tial bench,” the matter is decided; he has yielded himself up 
to grace, and immediately after that he must, according to the 
prescribed rule, feel himself completely and wonderfully 
refreshed and relieved; and he is then entered as a convert, 
and as a member of the society in the lists of the sect. The 
“penitential bench” is the sacrament at the revivals—the 
infallible means of new birth. As the whole machinery is 
really a strictly logical application of the old Protestant 
doctrine of justification, all the “evangelical” communities 
—even the German Lutherans and Calvinists—have intro- 
duced “ Revivals ;” and they are regarded in America as the 
most important and beneficial religious discovery of modern 
times. Besides the town revivals, there are also the Camp- 
meetings, specially set on foot, by the Methodists, as the great 
lever of American religion. Even the sects of a Socinian 
character, which deny the Trinity and the Godhead of Jesus 
Christ—such as the Campbellites—make use of this plan of 
revivals with the greatest success,' and have, by means of 

1 FLAvet S. Mrvgs, “A Presbyterian Clergyman looking for the 
Church.” New York, 1855, p. 81.—The Rev. J. Marsden, Methodist 
missionary, who had attended several of the American camp meetings, 
and who expresses his strong approval of them, gives the following 
evidence as to the results produced by ‘‘a powerful spirit of prayer and 
exhortation” :—‘tI have not unfrequently seen three or four persons 
lying on the ground, crying for mercy, or motionless, without any 
apparent signs of life, except pulsation.”—Marspen’s “‘ Narrative of a 
Mission to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,” quoted in Evans’s ‘‘ Sketch of 
the Denominations of the Christian World.” London, 1827, pp, 211, 212. 


234 BAPTISTS. 


them, considerably increased their numbers during the last 
thirty years—though it is true that the congregations 
speedily got together by revivals are apt to melt away again 
just as rapidly as they were collected; and troops of those 
who have been so regenerated, are liable, in a very short 
time, to forget all about their regeneration. 

Two circumstances have contributed powerfully to the 
importance of “ Revivals” in America: first, the character of 
the Americans themselves, which, under the influence of the 
climate of the country, and the monotony of lives entirely 
devoted to business and money-getting, requires, from time to 
time, some excitement, and seeks it—if not in gaming or 
drink—in religion ;' secondly, the meagre, cold, Puritanical 
service, which, abolishing all that is liturgical or symbolical, 
consists merely in preaching, and long prayers, spoken by 
the minister, and affords so much the more ready entrance and 
favourable reception for a theatrical method of conversion, 
producing literally the most striking effects, and overpowering 
the strongest nerves. 

If we observe the present state of the chief religious 
parties of America, we shall find that, next to the Methodists, 
the. Baptists, the youngest of the great communities,’ now 
subdivided into seven sects, are the most numerous of all the 
Protestant denominations of America. Only the Methodists 
can dispute with them this precedence. From the year 1792 
to 1852, their churches had risen from 1000 to 9584; and in 
1856, they numbered 1,322,469 communicating members. 
They have no representation, no organization, and no con- 
fessions. According to their theory, all church government 
and church offices are an evil. Every congregation is a 
complete independent body. The particular Baptist sects 
are separated from each other by very strong differences of 
doctrine. The American Baptist, or Socinian Campbellite, 
has, with the exception of his practice in baptism, little in 
common with a Calvinist Baptist. 

1 Orro, “‘ Nordwestliche Bilder.” Schwerin, 1854, p. 22. 

? The first Baptist congregation was formed in New York in 1762. 


See Gorrtr’s “ Churches and Sects of the United States.” New York, 
1850, p. 134. . 


PRESBYTERIANS. 235. 


The fact that the Baptists form so numerous—indeed the 
most numerous—of all religious parties of North America, 
deserves much attention. They would be still more numerous, 
if it were not that the rites of Baptism and the Lord’s Sup- 
per, in their sacramental signification, are regarded by the 
whole Calvinistically-disposed world as such subordinate 
matters, that the question as to their original form appears to 
many a matter of such indifference that no one needs trouble 
himself much about it. The Baptists are, in fact, from the 
Protestant point of view, unassailable, since they have the 
Bible text in favour of the practice of baptism by “ immer- 
sion ;” whilst the authority of the Church and her testimony 
will be recognised neither by the one party nor the other.! 

More important, in a spiritual point of view, is the influence 
of the Presbyterians, who, with the Congregationalists, are 
the descendants and heirs of the old Puritans, “the Pilgrim 
Fathers,” the founders of New England.- They are the 
originators and curators of American theology, as far as it 
can be said to exist. They carried the most genuine Calvin- 
ism with them from their English home, and for a long time 
clung firmly to a system that had cost them so many sacri- 
fices. Their preachers were inexhaustible in their way of 
working out their theory of Predestination, and in descriptions 
of the damnation to which God had pre-ordained the majority 
of little children. Fatalism and Antinomianism bore their 
fruits in the moral and intellectual decline of their congrega- 
tions. Edwards endeavoured to prop up Calvinism by means 
of Locke’s philosophy; but Dwight, Lyman, Beecher, and 
Barnes have, in modern times, broken down the sway of the 
Calvinistic doctrine and the Westminster Confession. Here- 

1 Not even a Baptist translation of the Bible can therefore be used by the 
other parties. An English missionary of the Congregationalists writes 
from Calcutta: ‘‘ The Baptists take the first place in translations into 
the Bengalee. We here mostly make use of the translation of Yates 
(Baptist), but since the Baptist Society, whose property the translation 
is, insist on translating BaxriZev, only by ‘to immerse,’ ‘to dip under,’ 
all friends of Infant Baptism, as well as the Calcutta Bible Society, feel 
the want of a new translation.’—ReEuTER’s ‘“ Repertorium,” vol. liii., 
p. 70. This is saying, in fact, ‘‘ We must translate the Bible falsely, in 
order that the heathens, to be converted, may not discover our weak points.” 


236 CONGREGATIONALISTS. 


upon there followed, in 1838, a complete division. Barnes, and 
500 preachers, with about 60,000 laymen, were ejected by the - 
General Assembly on account of heterodoxy ; and they formed 
immediately the Presbyterian Church of the “ New School.”! 

The genuine Puritans or Congregationalists, who are found 
principally in New England, have undergone much alteration 
in America. The old organic connexion, by which the indi- 
vidual congregations were subordinate to a superior assembly 
—a Convocation or Association—has been dissolved. Their 
Church has, in consequence of Unitarian and Universalist 
movements, become more democratic. There is no common 
symbol any more, but each congregation has its own. The 
clergyman is merely the dependent servant of the congrega- 
tion, called and elected by them.2 The Presbyterians have 
followed an opposite course of development. With them the 
subordination of the congregation to the elders, Presbyteries, 
and Synods has been confirmed and increased—and the 
result is that the two religious communities, which had been 
previously approaching at many points, are now mutually 
repugnant to one another. 

The whole bearing of the Puritanical sects, with their 
“Revivals,” has had the effect of leading to numerous secessions 
among the clergy, and especially among those of the Pres- 
byterian parties, who are more theologically instructed than 
the Baptists and Methodists, the latter being generally very 
ignorant persons. Within a few years—up to 1855—300 
Presbyterian clergymen have gone over to the Episcopalian 
Church, which rejects Revivals, resists Calvinism, and allows 
to individuals the liberty at least to inculcate notions respect- 
ing justification and grace in an anti-Calvinistic sense.’ 

One of these clergymen, Colton, formerly the panegyrist 
of Revivals,‘ in which he saw “a new Dispensation, des- 
tined to be diffused over the whole world,” has gradually, in 

1 See ‘‘ History of the Division of the Presbyterian Churches, by a Com- 
mittee of the Synod,” &c. “ New York, 1855. 

? Krausr’s “ Kirch.-Zeitung,” 1856, p. 129. 

* Mixes, “ Looking for the Church,” p. 11. 


' *TIn his Essay, ‘‘ History and Character of American Revivals.” 
London, 1832. 


PROTESTANTISM IN THE CONFESSIONAL. 237 


consequence of the experience he has had of them, been 
brought to the decided rejection of the whole institution. 
“The mind,” he says, “is enslaved by them, a false con- 
science is created and encouraged, and the whole intellectual 
and moral character of the people destroyed.”! —* 

There is still more clear and emphatic evidence concerning 
the root of all this evil. What Protestant theologians of 
former times, Lutherans as well as the Reformed, report con- 
cerning the destructive consequences of the Justification 
doctrine, as it was moulded by the Reformation, is now 
confirmed in America, where the doctrine is still in high 
repute, and proclaimed from innumerable pulpits. The 
writings of American theologians contain remarkable con- 
fessions concerning it. The preacher Flavel S. Mines says 
that—“ After a long and careful examination of the matter, 
it is his conviction that the doctrine of Justification by 
Faith, as it is preached, separate from sanctity of life, and 
consisting merely in a feeling, a reflective act of the soul 
(the certainty of being in a state of grace), is the most 
soul-destroying heresy of the age. Nevin, the most 
thorough and profound of all living American theologians, 
maintains also that the doctrine leads, in America, to fearful 
delusions, and does indescribable mischief.’ 

The general depreciation of the Sacraments, and the Cal- 
vinistic dogma of “ Election,” have had the effect of inducing 
the Presbyterians and Congregationalists very frequently to 
leave their children unbaptized. The parents consider it 
unnecessary to get them baptized—and the preachers on 
their side will frequently, on account of the religious position 
of the parents, not admit the children to baptism; and since, 
also, the Baptists of all denominations reject Infant Baptism, 

1 Cotton's ‘‘ Thoughts on the Religious State of the Country.” New 
York, 1836, p. 178. a 

2 “« Looking for the Church,” p. 492. 

3 ‘¢ Mercersburg Review,” iv. 615. Some years later (1858, ‘‘ Mercers- 
burg Review,” x. 395) the same theologian remarks: ‘‘ That in its cus- 
tomary Puritanical acceptation, this doctrine of Justification by Faith has 


been turned into a fiction which contradicts the Apostolic teaching, and 
gives to the Christian religion a form altogether different.” 


238 © SECTARIAN LAXITY OF CPINION. 


many thousands grow up, and many thousands of Presby- 
terians and Baptists—die unbaptized.! 

In the history of Sects which are not sunk into an mert 
state of vegetation, it is common to find them proceeding by 
fits and starts from one extreme to the other: and it happens 
inevitably that the emanations of mere caprice, groping in the 
dark—or of individual narrow-mindedness—have to serve as 
substitutes for the necessary results of organic institutions. 
Thus it has happened that the two main branches of the 
American Puritans—the Presbyterians and Congrega- 
tionalists—being dissatisfied with their Westminster Confes- 
sion, have introduced into their various congregations or 
Synods a number of whimsical or extravagant Confessions of 
Faith—so that, according to the statement of the preacher, 
Colton, some hundreds of these formule may be found 
among the Presbyterians, and you can hardly go from one 
town to another without coming upon a new creed, notwith- 
standing the similarity of the sect.2 Colton, who filled the 
most influential offices in the Presbyterian Church, relates 
that he himself has organized above fifteen Churches, and 
introduced into each of them a Confession of Faith drawn up 
by himself, but which had to be modified every time, accord- 
ing to the degree of his knowledge and the momentary 
character of his views. 

Thus in the Puritan communities there prevails the most 
extreme laxity of opinion, combined with isolated, and 
mostly fruitless, attempts to establish an obligatory or- 
thodoxy. To the old disputes and differences of the 
Puritans, new ones have now been added. These are 
Hopkinsonians, and followers of the “ New Light,” “ Mode- 


1 ** Mercersburg Review,” vol. viii. 34-35 ; vol. x., p. 41. The same 
periodical maintains (vol. vii., 202) that at present baptism is denied to 
the children of one half of the professed Christians of America, and 
thought slightingly of by the ‘great majority. FrLaver S. Mines (p. 
60) calculates, in the Presbyterian publication, the ‘‘ Princeton Review,” 
that in the last twenty years two thirds of the children of this denomina- 
tion, namely 413,298, remained unbaptized. 

**Thoughts on the Religious State of the Country.” New York, 
1836, p. 63. 


UNITARIANS AND UNIVERSALISTS. 239 


rate” and “Strict” Calvinists, “ Destructionists and Re- 
storationists,” deniers of original sin, like Taylor and 
Park; “ Pre-existents,” like Edward Beecher, who place 
the Fall of Man in a former state of existence. The “ re- 
jection of original sin” has even become a_ prevailing 
theory in New England, that is, in the six North-Eastern 
States, which are the oldest of the Union, and the original 
home of American Puritanism.! 

In consequence of a process of doctrinal decomposition, 
there arose in America, towards the end of the last century, 
as there had previously arisen in England, without any 
foreign influence, congregations of Unitarians. It was the 
rude and mechanical Calvinistic conception of the Atone- 
inent theory, the rending asunder of the Trinity, implied by 
that conception, and the opposing of the Divine Persons, 
Who, according to that same conception, militated against 
one another, like parties in a law-suit; it was this distortion 
and disfigurement of the Central Doctrine of Christianity 
that, by a natural reaction, made Unitarians of the Puritan 
theologians and preachers. In the State of Massachusetts, 
and in Boston especially, those pulpits from which had 
preached the oracles of American Calvinism, are now occu- 
pied by clergymen who deny the Trinity, and reject the 
Divine Nature of the Son. 

In the meantime, Unitarianism in America has already 
entered its stage of decay. The preachers of the sect have 
renounced Christianity and adopted Pantheistic views, as 
the most gifted among them—Theodore Parker—did in the 
year 1859—and partly they have gone over to the Episcopal 
Church.? Gorrie reckons that in the year 1850 there were 
244 Unitarian preachers, and about 30,000 members.’ 

Very close to the Unitarians stand the Universalists, who 
in 1840 had only 83 preachers, but, in 1855, 700 preachers, 
with about 1,100 congregations. Their doctrine of the 
ultimate salvation of all men has led many of them to a 

1“ Mercersburg Review,” viii. 219. 


2 Messner’s * Kirch.-Zeitung,” 1860, p. 96. 
® ‘ Churches and Sects,” p. 182. 


240 ' METHODISTS. 


Rationalistic rejection of all Christian mysteries. This sect 
also, however, is already going to-decay. 

It is in the religious world as in the world of vegetation. 
Those plants which most readily propagate themselves— 
spread most rapidly and shoot up most luxuriantly—are 
neither the healthiest nor precisely those that are .most 
welcome to the gardener. In America it is especially the 
Methodists and Baptists who have spread most easily, and 
can boast of the most prodigious progress. This they owe 
to the skill with which they have made religion palpable and 
palatable, so that everyone can appropriate it easily, and get 
on well with it—and also that the doctrine. and practice can 
be mastered in the shortest possible time, and then dis- 
tributed from the pulpit. 

But it is also to their zeal and unwearied activity that 
these two great communities owe their success. Among all 
sects the Methodists have in America developed the most 
comprehensive activity, and within ninety years have spread 
to an extent of which there are not many examples in his- 
tory. They have indeed become divided amongst them- 
selves. The most distinguished party is the Episcopal 
Methodist Church; but even in this the slavery question 
has produced.a breach—namely, between the Northern and 
Southern Methodists—and has led to a long law-suit concern- 
ing the partition of Church property. The term “ Episcopal” 
is not to be taken literally; but Wesley did for America 
what he could not do in England: he ordained an Anglican 
clergyman—Thomas Coke—to be a Superintendent; and 
since then his followers have had superintendents, who 
allow themselves to be called “Bishops.” The laity are 
excluded from all share in the government of the society—the 
Conference rules alone; the congregations are not allowed to 
choose their preachers—who are appointed for them, and 
that only for a few years. 

The greater part of the Methodist preachers are utterly 
destitute of scientific culture; and real Biblical knowledge is 
not to be thought of amongst them.! They are amply pro- 


‘See RauscHENBuscn’s ‘“ Die Nacht des Westens.”—Barmen, 1847, 
p- 22. ; 


METHODISTIC MEANS OF EDIFICATION, 241 


vided for if they have a good number of texts at command. 
Many have been previously mechanics, and as they happened 
to show some fluency of speech, were first, after a short 
training, made “exhorters,” and then appointed to be 
preachers. After this, frequent class and prayer meetings 
leave them no time for Bible studies. The end they aim at 
is not the tranquil instruction and harmonious education of 
men to a Christian life—violent excitemént and agitation 
are the means best suited to attain the purpose which the 
sect seeks for and is desirous to attain.’ In their divine 
services, the Methodists, as their preacher Rauschenbusch 
reports,” frequently make so much noise, partly during the 
sermon, but still more during the prayers, since they not 
unfrequently all pray aloud together, one outscreaming the 
other, that it is not possible to hear the sermon or prayer 
uttered from the pulpit. 

The constant changes of the preachers—the travelling 
preachers—the hymns sung to the wildest popular tunes— 
the mutual communication of “heart experiences,” so de- 
structive to humility and truthfulness—the alternation of 
religious emotions, dependent on purely physical states and 
corporeal affections—the artificial groaning produced by a 
half-sensuous, half-moral epidemic—this entire apparatus of 
means invented by the Methodists, and copied by other 
sects, even by Germans, is supposed to produce in a few 
hours results for which a year’s sedulous religious exercises 
and self-instruction would otherwise be required. All this 
evokes a sort of intoxication of mind, that for the moment 
appears to satisfy it, but afterwards leaves it so much the 
more void and famished; and so all such violent excite- 
ment and enthusiasm is not unfrequently followed by the 
dreariest indifference. Many of those “converted” fall off 

1 Christian knowledge is to the Methodists mostly a very subordinate 
matter—superfluous, if not dangerous. The religious instruction of the © 
young is regulated—and, indeed, why should it not be so, since it is 
what takes place on ‘the bench of sorrow” that the salvation of the 
soul depends? A vague, confused emotion is the pledge of election !— 
HENGSTENBERG, “ Kirch.-Zeitung,” 1847, p. 328. 


2 * Die Nacht des Westens,” p. 43. 
R 


242 i THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 


again very soon, and avoid a religion which has occasioned 
them such bitter_delusions. A false confidence in this 
method, nevertheless, goes so far, that among Methodists the 
whole religious education of children is often neglected, in 
the expectation that a “ Revival,” a “ Camp-meeting,” and a 
few hours probation on the stool of repentance, will, all at 
once, make amends for the neglect of years.' 

The theology of America is expressed by the form and 
character of the churches, the number of which has been 
increased enormously by the growth of the population and 
the rivalship of the various sects. The European standard 
must not be applied to these buildings. The feeling of 
religious veneration for a consecrated spot does not seem to 
exist; and many of the churches bear a much stronger 
resemblance to a theatre than to a Gothic Cathedral. Asa 
matter of course, they have no altars, for an altar would be 
an abomination in the eyes of a Protestant American; he 
likes a building in which a pompous theatrical rostrum 
for the spiritual “orator” occupies the place of the altar, 
and in which every possible provision is made for the comfort 
of the audience. Many of the city churches look like 
elegant reception-rooms of fashionable ladies.? 

The Episcopal Church is here, as well as in England, the 
Church of “ good society,” and is perhaps so much the more 
agreeable to its highly respectable members, that they have 
the church all to themselves, and need not fear the intrusion 
of the poor and lowly. Even the educated German, if he 
cares about a Church at all, usually keeps to this,? and does not 
trouble himself about either the Lutheran or the Calvinist sects; 
whilst, on the contrary, the English immigrants, though they 
have been at home members of the State Church, generally — 
in America join one of the Puritan or Methodist sects. The 
American Episcopal Church, departing from the practice 
of the Mother Establishment, has introduced a Lay Repre- 
~ 1 Sonarr, ‘* America,” p. 129. 

2 See the description in ‘‘ Mercersburg Review,” iv. 214. 


’ HENGSTENBERG, ‘“ Kirch.-Zeitung,” 1847, p. 340. 
* CaswaLt, ‘‘ The Western World Revisited.” Oxford, 1854, p. 296. 


GERMAN LUTHERANS. 243 


sentation. But the deep chasm between the Evangelicals 
and the Arminian High Church people, which here as well as 
in the mother country divides the Bishops into two parties 
with very dissimilar views, renders every vigorous co-opera- 
tion in this Church impossible. In any other denomination 
such a contrast would have led to open separation and the 
formation of a new community; and whenever either the 
one or the other comes to be in earnest in its views it must 
end in a like result. 

In England many people look with longing and envy 
towards the daughter of the Anglican State Church, whose 
lot it is to be free from the oppressive yoke of Government 
supremacy; and Bishop Wilberforce wrote its history in this 
sense a few years since: “the mother was to rejoice in the 
consciousness of having brought forth a daughter happier 
than herself” One of the American bishops, however, 
remarks that “the laity have, in all church affairs (according 
to the laws there), an overpowering influence, which is still 
further increased by the dependence of the clergy on the 
voluntary contributions of the laity.”! And this lay yoke, 
as he says, “fell the more severely on the Church, as the 
laymen are altogether irresponsible in the exercise of their 
ecclesiastical functions, and can be judged by no tribunal, 
even on account of heresy and schism.” 

By the side of, and after the Anglo-Saxon race, the Ger- 
mans form the most important nationality in North America, 
and the numerous Protestants of this nation have managed 
their church affairs quite according to their own pleasure. 
Before all others, the German Lutherans in America have, 
for a long time, awakened great attention and sympathy. 
There—namely, where Lutheranism, completely free from 
political tutorship and dominion, has been fully able to 
develop itself—it was hoped its church-constructive power 


1 SitLiMAN Ives, “The Trials of a Mind ;” London, 1854, p. 143. The 
author has become a Catholic. Pusty also says, in ‘‘ The Councils of 
the Church” (London, 1858, p. 24), ‘‘ The introduction of lay representa- 
tives into the American Church was an unfortunate example, set in bad 
times. 


R2- 


244 GERMAN REFORMED COMMUNITY. 


would have shown itself in the production of a united Free 
German Church. But this hope has proved to be utterly 
vain, The great majority of the Lutherans have renounced 
both the language and the Lutheran doctrine, and become 
partly Zwinglian, partly Methodistic, and have thrown aside 
the old confession of faith. American Lutheranism is, in fact, 
in one word, autochthonic, and a plant very different from 
the German religious form of that name. Even the preachers 
and congregations that have desired to retain the Lutheranism 
they brought from Germany have not been able to effect any 
union. It is precisely among these that the clergy are 
exposed to the most painfully vigilant watching on the part 
of the members of the congregation who desire to govern 
them. They are tutored, worried, hemmed in, and oppressed 
by all parties, and at the same time miserably paid.' No 
Church authority has ever been organized, and the congre- 
gations are almost all independent. “Every Church,” says 
our German informant, “ is cleft by hostile divisions; none 
are in a healthy state—none stable, candid, faithful, and 
impartial, in their tendency. The individual has to seek his 
path painfully through a thorny field—there is no one to 
show him the way.” How every town where German Pro- 
testants amount but to a few hundreds is immediately 
possessed by the demon of Church discord, and cannot in 
any wise attain to the formation of a united congregation, 
has been strikingly described by the Preacher Biittner.? 
Many of these German congregations are only “ disorderly 
rationalist communities,” who engage a preacher as they would 
a servant, and exclude him from the council of the Church.’ 

The German Reformed community is regarded by the 
true American Calvinist as an heretical sect ; “it is almost 
Arminian,” they say; “ and, since Nevin and his companions 
have arisen within its bosom, also Romanizing.”4 

1 HENGSTENBERG’s “ Kirch.-Ztg.,” 1847, p. 300. See also ReuTer’s 
** Repertoire,” vol. Ixxiv. p. 93. 

+“ Die Vereinigten Staaten von Nordamerika ;” Hamburg, 1844, and 
‘‘ Briefe aus und tiber Nordamerika.” Dresden, 1845. 


5 Scnarr, p. 99. 
* Thus the Presbyterian BLakey, in his ‘* Philosophy of Sectarianism ;” 


DEPENDENT CONDITION OF THE CLERGY. 245 


Through the whole extent of German Protestantism the 
slavish dependence of the preachers on the congregations is 
felt as one of the worst results of the prevailing Church 
system. The feeling of this dependence has been, indeed, 
from the beginning, stronger in the mind of the preachers 
than in that of his auditory. The consciousness weighs upon 
him that he has no high mission, no office sustained and 
guaranteed by an ancient and sublime institution. He is but 
a delegate, who only dares to proclaim to his hearers that which 
they had previously determined should be preached. 

Schaff, in his report to the Berlin Alliance Assembly, in 
which the most rose-coloured representation possible of the 
state of circumstances in America was expected, animadverted 
on the fact of the unbecoming dependence of the clergy upon 
their congregations. ‘The Americans,” he says,' “ expect 
a clergyman to do his duty, and, without fear of man, or 
anxiety to please, lay before them the whole counsel of godli- 
ness, and point as sharply and specially to human depravity, 
and to the consolatory promises that have been made to it ”— 
that is to say, that, in America, as elsewhere, wherever the 
doctrines of the Reformation are still in authority, the con- 
gregation like their preachers to relieve them of moral 
responsibility, by preaching the three connected doctrines of 
absolute Divine Election, of total depravity and complete 
moral impotency, and of Free Grace by mere Imputation. To 
do this, there is not the slightest occasion for the minister to 
be fearless; on the contrary, he would show much more 
freedom from the fear of man if he preached the opposite 
old Church doctrine. 

The fact, to which every stranger bears witness, that there 
are in no civilized country so few people having opinions of 
their own, and the courage to express those opinions, as in 
America, must be extremely unfavourable to the mental 


London, 1854, p. 55. The book is instructive, for the knowledge of 

American Sectarianism it displays; but still more attractive, from the 

light that the author lets fall on his own community, the Presbyterian 

Church, than from what he says as regards others. 
1“ Amerika.” Berlin, 1854, p. 63. 


246 - PREACHER VISITATION SOCIETY, 


freedom of their preachers. A well-informed and sharp- 
sighted observer has remarked, lately, ‘ that, in everything 
not political, a tyrannically-ruling majority works upon all 
minds, and levels and crushes down all varieties, till they 
all resemble one another, as do the rounded pebbles in a 
brook.”! It is known how this tyranny of public opinion 
has operated in the question of race; the whole Protestant 
clergy have yielded to the prevalent aversion of every com- 
munity of whites to the coloured population; and in New 
Orleans, for example, the Catholic Churches are the only 
places in which white and coloured people pray by the side of 
one another.” 

All Protestant theologians, whose writings I have seen, 
complain of the want of independence in the preachers, of 
their general deficiency in moral courage, and the oppressive 
yoke that the congregations have fastened upon them, 
Channing, Colton, Mines, often recur to the subject.2 They 
describe the preachers as the victims of a tyranny exercised 
frequently by the low and ignorant, and that to an extent 
such as has never hitherto been known, As a rule, the con- 
fidence and presumption with which the representatives of the 
congregation bear themselves towards their preachers, stand 
in an inverse ratio to their amount of mental culture.‘ Every 
idea that passes beyond their narrow sphere of theological 
vision renders the orthodoxy of their preacher doubtful to 
them, They are liberal with their exhortations and remon- 
strances, which they bestow upon him ev officio. A few 
years ago there was, in New England, a regular Preacher 
Visitation Society, of self-appointed laymen, who travelled 
from place to place, made inquiries concerning clergymen, 
and bestowed counsel, censure, or warning as they thought 
fit. It is quite consistent with this state of things that the 
congregations often only engage their preachers for a time, 


1“ Skizzen aus Nordamerika.”—“ Allg.-Ztg.,” June, 1861, p. 2646. 

2 “ Christian Remembrancer,” 1860, ii. 79. 

* For example, CHANNiNG’s “* Works,” vy. 317 ; Cotron, 138; Mrnzs, 
291. 

* See the vivid description in HENGsTENBERG’s “ Kirch.-Ztg.,” xx, 
132, * 


PROTESTANT ANTI-CATHOLIC TACTICS, 247 


and with the reserve of a certain notice in case of dismissal.! 
It is not surprising, therefore, that clergymen are met with 
every day, who have renounced voluntarily, or on compulsion, 
the office of preacher, and now carry on some secular occu- 
pation. 

The orthodox Churches, says the reformed preacher, 
Biittner (he includes all Calvinist, Lutheran, and German 
Reformed Denominations under this head), however hostile 
they may be to one another, as soon as ever the word 
“Roman Catholic” is pronounced, forget their mutual differ- 
ences and hostilities, and stand against. the Roman Catholics 
like a wall. Should a religious war ever break out in the 
United States, which is not improbable, for there is combus- 
tible material enough in readiness, the question will not be 
asked, “ Are you a Presbyterian, or a Methodist, or a Baptist 
—a Lutheran, a Calvinist, or a Congregationalist—but, 
simply, Are you a Protestant or a Catholic ?”? 

Schaff has described how the polemical contest is carried 
on, by the whole Protestant press of America,’ against the 
Catholic Church: it is, he says, by fabricated lies, by gross 
calumnies, by the ignoring or falsification of history. This 
cannot excite surprise, if we consider the breadth and depth 
of the chasm that divides all these sects, but especially the 
‘puritanical, from the Church, and if we are able to realise 
the contrast of their position. ‘ Whilst,” writes a German 
Protestant, from America, “all the Protestant denomina- 
tions are weakened by perpetual new divisions, and mostly 
at bitter enmity with one another, the Catholic Chureh, as 
one man—one organism, animated by one soul, pursuing, with 
firm, clear consciousness, one object—advances without noise, 
without even, until lately, uttering one word of defence 
against accusations and hostile attacks, but persevering 
with iron consistency, and from year to year gaining new 
ground.”* 


1 Atlantische Studien,” ii. 130. 

2‘ Kirchliche Viertel-Jahresschrift.” Berlin, 1845, i. 130, 
+ “ Kirchenfreund,” Sept. 1852. 

4 HENGSTENBERG’s “ Kirch.-Zeitung,” 1847, 341. 


248 RELIGIOUS CONDITION OF NORTH AMERICA. 


The whole existirig condition of North America, in a 
religious point of view, is calculated to awaken great anxiety 
among all thinking men in the country. ‘The great 
majority of the rising generation is without any positive 
religion,” said the before-mentioned preacher, Edson; “all 
the instruction they receive consists in, perhaps, some lessons 
of natural religion ; and I greatly fear that we are advancing 
by certain, and by no means slow steps, in the direction of 
complete absence of religion and moral ruin.”! In the whole 
daily press there prevails worthless radicalism, and, for some 
time past, unveiled irreligion.2 The total want of a sentiment 
of veneration, is, as the American theologians mournfully 
confess, a predominant feature of the national character.® 
The entire spirit in which the religious press is carried on is 
a disgrace to the cause of Christianity. “The number of 
professing Christians,” says a Baptist preacher, “is diminish- 
ing in all our sects.” The Churches are stationary from 
want of preachers, and the conduct of professing Christians 
is generally such that it would be almost an affront to a man 
of honour to suppose him willing to be converted, and to 
become as “one of them.” If the present decline continues, 
in the course of twenty or thirty years “the candlestick” will 
be removed from its place. The Church makes no proselytes, 
and has no influence upon the masses.° 

In an American periodical, “The Evangelist,” it was 
lately maintained that, even in the Free States of the Union, 
the present time was more favourable to Catholicity than 
had been any period for centuries past; but this certainly. 
must not be understood with respect to the prevailing state 


1 TREMENHEERE, p. 53. 


* See the article, ‘‘ Signs of the Times,” in the “ Mercersburg Review,” 
vii. 290. 


* Cotton, ‘* Genius and Mission of the Protestant Episcopal Church.” 
London, 1853, p. 260. : 

z ‘* Mercersburg Review,” vii. 293. It is scarcely possible to say any- 
thing worse of the character of the religious press of America than what 
we find in this periodical. 


* See the work of the American Hecker, “ Aspirations of Nature.” 
New York, 1857. | 


RELIGIOUS ASPIRATIONS. 249 


of mind in North America, which is decidedly hostile to the 
Catholic religion.' It is natural, however, that many persons 
should feel oppressed and imprisoned within the narrow 
boundaries of sectarianism ; that they should be dissatisfied 
with the poor and meagre remnants of Christian faith there 
offered to them, and sigh for a harmonious and inwardly 
connected system of Christian faith and life; that, before 
all things, they should desire to be relieved from the torment 
of a dreary subjectivity, and an unauthorised conventional 
interpretation of the Bible. To what results this tendency 
will lead in the future, time must determine. 


? Kravse’s ‘‘ Kirch.-Zeitung,” 1858, p. 551. 


250 


THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN SCANDINAVIAN 
COUNTRIES. 


THe Wittenberg doctrine was, on the whole, introduced 
into the North by violence; by the will of monarchs, with the 
assistance of nobles, longing to gain possession of Church — 
property; and—against the wishes of the people. The people 
were, in fact, systematically cheated out of their religion, as 
in Sweden; and partly they were kept in profound ignorance 
—so much so that in Denmark, at the end of the sixteenth 
century, not one in twenty knew how to read. In Norway, 
Christian III. had degraded the people beneath a twofold 
yoke—that of the Danish nobles, and of the new Danish 
religion; whilst, for the real religious culture of the people, 
nothing whatever was effected. This state of things lasted 
till the eighteenth century. Catechetical instruction was 
not given; the sermons were unintelligible to the multitude, 
who were unprepared for them; “and there reigned in the 
land an almost heathen blindness.”! In a petition pre- 
sented by the Norwegian bishops, in the year 1714, to 
King Frederick IV., they felt compelled to make the 
avowal: “If some few children of God are excepted, there 


? Thus Bishop Ponroprman describes the total neglect and increas- 
ing barbarism of the people down to the year 1714, in his “‘ Pastoral 
Letter,” translated into German by Schénfeldt. Rostock, 1756, pp. 
129-30. 


THE CHURCH IN DENMARK. 251 


is no other difference between us and our heathen. ancestors 
than that we bear the name of Christians.”1 

In Denmark, by means of the Reformation, the king had 
become, as chief bishop, the complete master of the Church. 
In the royal law of 1665, it is declared boldly, without the 
least circumvention, or mitigation of the fact, “that the king, 
as supreme judge and ruler upon earth, possesses unlimited 
power over the Church and religion, as well as over the 
State.”? One only condition was made with him by the 
patent of 1648—he was not to tolerate the exercise of any 
other religion than the Lutheran. The kings governed the 
Church through their chancellors, and subsequently by the 
College of Chancery, which, with its judicial business, the care 
of the poor, and other functions, had also to administer 
the affairs of the Church. As to the nine or ten bishops of 
the country—who had nothing but the same name in 
common with bishops of the Catholic Church—they, with the 
Lutherans, of course, must abandon every idea of episcopal 
succession and transmitted authority, and were nothing more 
than government officers of the royal chief bishop. The 
Danish history, since the Reformation, contains no mention of 
any attempt or effort at ecclesiastical independence, or of any 
movement indicating life in the Church. All remained 
dumb and subservient, and the rulers, in thankful acknow- 
ledgment of that pliant subjection which they owed to the 
Lutheran spirit, carefully suppressed the slightest departure 
from the Lutheran dogma, and the doctrinal type of the 
theological faculty of Wittenberg. In the only university of 
the country, that of Copenhagen, there was “scarcely more than — 
a scanty training establishment for the Church service,’ and it 
took care to provide a theology acceptable to the Court ; whilst 
the disputes and divisions occasioned by Pietism were decided 
and put down by Royal Rescripts and Cabinet commands,‘ 


1 HENGSTENBERG’Ss “ Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1843, p. 536. 

2 ENGELSTOFT, in “‘ Herzog’s Encyclopedia,” iii. 610, 

3 See a detailed description in Brun’s and H6rrner’s “‘ Neues Reper- 
torium,” v. 101. 

+ The measureless ignorance of the theologians educated at Copenhagen, 


252 ITS UNSETTLED STATE. 


By the new Fundamental Law of 1849, which has given 
an overwhelming democratic character to the Danish Govern- 
ment, the Lutheran Church is-called “the Danish National 
Church,” and the religious character of the Government is 
renounced, since full freedom of doctrine and worship is 
granted ; and indeed liberty had been carried to such an extent 
lately as to do away with the obligation to baptism. The 
old dependence of the Church on the State has, however, 
remained. The King, the only man in all Denmark who is 
obliged to be a Lutheran, is still Supreme Bishop; it is not, 
however, the King personally, but the constitutional Minister 
of Divine Worship who rules the Church; and how much 
stability is afforded by this mode of government may be 
known from the fact that Denmark has had since 1848 five 
and forty such ministers! Of a regulated constitution of 
the Danish Church there can be no question; at times it 
finds itself, as Bishop Martensen observes, “in a floating 
medium state that can scarcely be called any form or order 
at all.”' Its constitution is for the present only a “subject 
of consideration.” Three different views are at present put 
forward. Some wish for an ecclesiastico-political position for 
the bishops, after the fashion of the English Church. The 
supremacy of the Ministers and of the Diet over spiritual 
affairs would then remain. Others wish for a Church repre- 
sentation by clergy and laity in synods, on the basis of uni- 
versal suffrage. All thoughtful persons, however, are alarmed 
at the idea of universal suffrage in church affairs. The ma- 
jority are of opinion that the Church should get on as well 
as it can for the present in its provisional state, without a 
constitution, since affairs are at “the moment too unsettled, 
and people’s views not sufficiently clear.”? It must be a bad 
case if the existing state is preferred to any attempt to form 


to which must be added their moral stagnation, corresponded but too 
well with the dreadfully slavish condition of the rural population, and the 
petty pedantry and stupidity of the cities.’ Thus speaks the Danish 
reporter.—‘* Repert.,” p. 103. 

‘The “ Verfassungsfrage der Diinischen Volkskirche.” Kiel, 1852, 
p. 7. 

? “ Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir Christl, Wiss.,” 1859, p. 88. 


DIVISION OF THE DANISH CLERGY. 253 


a constitution—a state in which the Church is dependent on 
a Diet, whose members not only do not. belong to the Lu- 
theran community, but in general are not even professed 
Christians. That a change in the position of the Church is 
felt more and more as a necessity, has been maintained by 
the preacher Kalkar von Gladsaxe, of Copenhagen, in the 
Berlin Alliance Assembly.! Christ,” he adds, in an apolo- 
getic tone, “is not so openly rejected as in other places, but 
there is very little spiritual life in Denmark.” 

Under the influence of Rationalism, which made _ its 
way hither from Germany since the end of the last century, 
not only the people of the higher and middle classes but 
even the clergy in masses, became unbelievers. The 
candidates for the pastoral office made some hypocritical 
pretences to orthodoxy, but in the sermon preached immedi- 
ately on ordination, and under the eyes of their bishops, 
they showed themselves decided Naturalists.2 A.ccording to 
Danish accounts, the great majority of the clergy have fallen 
as completely into the infidel new theological views as their 
Lutheran brethren, the clergy of Germany; they have only 
hovered between mere frivolous unbelief, and Rationalism 
that assumes somewhat more of a scientific character. 

At present, and for a considerable time past, the Danish 
clergy have been divided into two great parties—the Ra- 
tionalist unbelieving, whose teacher and leader was Professor 
Clausen, and the followers of Grundtvig. The persevering 
struggle of this man (Grundtvig) against Rationalism, has 
led him to a theory, that the German Lutherans, on their 
side, designate as “in its inmost core anti-reforming and 
anti-Lutheran!”? Whilst Protestantism in America wholly 
rejects the Apostles’ Creed, or casts it aside as valueless, 
Grundtvig, regarding it as a clear and firm confession of 
faith, and a manifest witness of the faith of the primitive 
Church, desires, in the same way as Lessing and Delbriick, 
to place it above the Bible, disfigured as that is by 
the caprice of private subjective interpretation. He 


1 “ Verhandlungen,” &c., p. 534. © * Brun’s “‘ Repert.,” v. 105. 
+ RupeLBacu, in “ Die Zeitschrift fiir Luth. Theol.,” 1857, p. 7. 


254 ECCLESIASTICAL STATE OF THE COUNTRY. 


and his party have, however, become more and more estranged 
from Lutheranism, and urge the complete abolition of State 
Supremacy and parochial connexion, and desire that every 
one should be at liberty to join whatever preacher, this or 
that, no matter which, but the one that he finds best suits 
him. The main point is, however, that the whole Grundtvig 
school is inclined to break with German Protestantism, or in 
some measure has already broken away from it. They will 
have nothing to do with German Protestant theology, nor 
with German confessions of faith. Rudelbach has ascribed 
this tendency to a fanatical hatred against everything Ger- 
man; but Grundtvig’s whole course of thought for many 
years proves that the real cause lies much deeper, and that 
it springs from a mode of thought nearly akin to that of the 
English Tractarians. 

For three hundred years was Denmark in its spiritual and 
religious affairs entirely dependent on the German theology 
and literature, and every movement made in it was but a 
feeble echo of German movements and German productions. 
But orthodox Protestantism, as it exists at present in Ger- 
many, has no existence in Denmark any longer. “ Orthodox 
preaching,” says Petersen, “occurs in Denmark only spo- 
radically.” ! 

A Danish clergyman—who in the Darmstadt Allgemeine 
Kirchenzeitung has written a description of the ecclesiastical 
condition of his country—gives, indeed, a very bad account 
of it; but then he explains and adds his opinion, that “the 
Lord has not altogether forsaken the Church of Denmark.” 
“ Many laymen,” he says, “have been awakened,” and, in 
confirmation of his statement, mentions that “a smith has 
been converted from the evil of his ways, and is now travel- 
ling about the country ”—that “a farmer has established a 
home mission society ”—and that “a baker is labouring for 
the freedom of the Church, and a more active spiritual life: of, 
Of what the clergy are doing he says nothing. 

It would be difficult, in fact, to paint a more deplorable 
picture of the state of any religious system. The people in 


1 RUDELBACH, p. 106. ?“ Jahrgang,” 1855, p. 1473, et seq. 


THE CHURCH IN SCHLESWIG. 255 


the cities withdraw so commonly from Divine service, that 
in Copenhagen, out of 150,000 inhabitants, there are only 
6,000 regular churchgoers.! In other cities the case seems 
still worse than in Copenhagen.? In Altona one single 
church is found sufficient for 45,000 inhabitants. The 
Church, chained to a Government now in the hands of a 
thorough democratically-constituted assembly, is in any im- 
portant question altogether helpless. The Church itself is 
split into parties, and has no spiritual or moral authority 
upon which to lean; and the people, without guide or shep- 
herd, have to seek for religious aliment among Baptists and 
Methodists, or to fall in the wilderness of barbarism. 

In Schleswig, also, the churches stand empty, both in the 
parts of the country where German is spoken and where 
Danish is the prevailing language. One chief cause of this 
is said to be the character of the Danish clergy. “The 


Danish clergy,” says the Schleswig preacher, Petersen, “ino- - 


culate the country with Danish levelling doctrines, Danish 
infidelity, and Danish immorality. The chief evil is not the 
oppressive enactments concerning the German language, but 
the irreligion that has been transplanted from Denmark to 
Schleswig, and the demoralisation that has accompanied it. 
Among the Danish clergy religious and moral conduct is the 
exception, not the rule.”® 

The Danish ill-treatment of the Church in Schleswig is, 
as it is now acknowledged, and bitterly complained of, a con- 
sequence of the Episcopal power having been placed by the 
Reformation in the hands of the sovereign. All Church ar- 
rangements—even those which concern its most inward life— 
have long been made on the sole authority of the Govern- 
ment. In the year 1834, even the administration of the 
Church affairs was taken from the Upper Consistory, and 
transferred to the Schleswig-Holstein Government.* 


1 Krause’s ‘ Kirch.-Ztg.,” 1859, p. 968. 

= Allo. Lit.-Ztg.,” 1841, ii. 491. 

+“ Erlebnisse eines Schleswig’schen Predigers.” Frankfort, 1856, p. 
337. 

4 ScuraDeEr, “ Die Kirchenverfassungsfrage.” Altona, 1849, p. 174. 


* 


256 THE STATE CHURCH IN SWEDEN. 


_ The Lutheran State Church of Sweden has been, from 
the beginning, even more than that of Denmark, entirely 
dependent in its theological relations upon Germany. The 
small number of theological writings that Sweden possesses 
are nearly all nothing more than translations from the 
German. The theological Rationalism of Germany has 
indeed seldom found entrance into Sweden; the clergy had, 
at the end of the last and the beginning of the present cen- 
tury, almost ceased to occupy themselves with theology; 
and when a celebrated Swedish theologian of the present 
time, Wieselgren, remarked, “our Church constitution and 
legislation only hold together on paper, for all has been 
detached and loosened by Rationalism,” he must have used the 
word “ Rationalism” only in the sense of “ practical indiffer- 
entism.” 

In England, a short time since, a glance was cast at the 
Swedish Church, in the hope of finding a certain kindred 
feeling and ecclesiastical sympathy with the state of the 
English Church and the efforts of Anglo-Catholics. But 
this hope has, upon closer inquiry, proved to be illusory. It 
was discovered that the Swedish Episcopacy had, precisely 
as little as the Danish, a claim to Apostolic Succession ; that 
the Swedish Bishops were very far from regarding and 
estimating their office in the sense of the old Church—that 
they were, in fact, Lutheran superintendents, and nothing 
more! The Swedish Church is simply a Lutheran one, a 
community from which every Catholic idea has been cleansed 
out ; completely devoid of what an Anglican would regard as 
a “ Church spirit.”! 

At the same time, however, the Swedish cannot be refused 
the testimony of being “the most perfectly organised Pro- 
testant community in Europe,” ? and in its love for Luther it 
perhaps exceeds even the old Lutherans of Germany itself. 

On the other hand, the preacher Trottet maintains that the 
country of Gustavus "Adbiphits is the least Protestant of all 
countries into which the Reformation has found admittance. 

1 “ Christian Remembrancer,” xiii. 425. 


2“ Chr. Rem.,” xiii. 435. 
3“ Hubers Janus.” Berlin, 1845, i. 232. 


STATE CONTROL OVER THE CHURCH. 257 


As a follower of Vinet, he turns away from the history of the 
Reformation, and all the new ecclesiastical conditions founded 
on it, and places the essence of Protestantism in “the freedom 
of religious life and the unshackled movements of the Church.” 
The Swedish Church, therefore, in which religion and politics 
are so closely interwoven, could not but appear to him ex- 
ceedingly unprotestant. 

The king is in Sweden the “chief superintendent and 
earthly lord of the Church ;” he unites in himself the highest 
spiritual and temporal power of the kingdom, and exercises 
his authority over the Church through the Royal Chancery, 
whose superior officer is the Minister for Foreign Affairs.' 
The Diet also shares with the king the control of the Church ; 
and ecclesiastical affairs are discussed by its members. Thus 
this singular state of things has followed, that while the 
clergy possess completely the position of a privileged class, 
and through their representation in the Diet exercise great 
political influence, the Church itself remains in slavish de- 
pendence upon the State.2 The king has even the power 
to demand from the Consistory letters of divorce for married 
couples who may desire to separate, and that for other causes 
than a violation of the marriage vow.2 The occupations of 
the clergy are mostly of a secular character—they are the 
best financiers and men of business in Sweden, and “capable 
of everything except their spiritual duties.”* The Church 
affairs are generally left to the curates. The sermons are 
read, as, it is said, the people themselves do not desire 
extempore preaching; and after the sermon the clergyman 
has often to act as beadle or crier, and make from his pulpit 
the most trivial announcements for half an hour together. 
When in an assembly of Bishops the abolition of this repul- 
sive and troublesome custom was recently proposed, they 
almost all declared themselves to its retention, for the reason 


1 Kurpret, in “ Herzog’s Encyclopidie,” vol. xiv. p. 83. 
? Trorret, ‘ Prediger in Stockholm,” in GELzER’s ‘‘ Monatsblattern,” 
xi. 140. 
3 « Kirchliche Vierteljahrsschrift.” Berlin, 1845, iv. 149. 
‘ Lresetrut, HencstenBere’s “ K.-Ztg.,” vol. xxxiv., p. 119. 
8 


258 CONDITION OF THE SWEDISH CLERGY. 


that if it were not for these announcements, they would often 
have only old women and children as their auditors.! The 
examinations carried on by preachers from house to house, 
which formerly enabled a clergyman to judge individually 
of the religious knowledge of his congregation, have declined 
in most districts into a mere mode of filling up tax-lists and 
making a census of the population.2 German observers 
report an almost incredible ignorance of the clergy, even up 
to the highest; and it is a thing unheard of that any one 
appointed by a patron te a cure should be rejected, let him 
be ever so rude and uneducated.’ His ignorance causes him 
no difficulty or embarrassment in his office; for if he can but 
merely read and write, he satisfies all demands that can be 
made upon him. He has fulfilled his duties if, besides the 
performance of the Church formalities and ceremonies, of 
which more have been retained in Sweden than elsewhere, 
he can on Sundays read out a written sermon. If to this 
we add that the vice of brandy drinking,‘ constantly on the 
increase in Sweden, has reached even the clergy, the state of 
things there will be tolerably intelligible. On the whole, it 
may nevertheless be said that the clerical body enjoys in no 
other Protestant country at the present day such important 
privileges, such great and manifold influence, as it does in 
Sweden. To this influence is to be ascribed the severity of 
the proceedings there against the “awakened” and the 
“readers,” as well as obstinate resistance to all reforms. Accord- 
ing to Liebetrut’s remark, a Swede who should touch on 
the existing abuses would be scouted on all sides as a Sama- 
ritan, who cared more for “life” than for “doctrine”—a blind 
zealot concerning things for which there was no help.° 
Liebetrut and other writers are accustomed to give the 
Swedish Church and clergy the credit of orthodox Luther- 
anism, but they say there reigns a dead orthodoxy. “ The 


1 LIEBETRUT, xxxiy. 172. 

* “ Kirchl. Vierteljahrsschrift,” 1845, iv. 149. 

* LIEBETRUT, 163. 

* See hereupon ‘‘ Allg.-Ztg.,” 1847, p. 5475. 

* HENGSTENBERG’s “ Kirch.-Ztg.,” vol. xxxviii., p. 148. 


“ DEFUNCT ORTHODOXY.” 259 


Swedish Church,” says Liebetrut, “is a Church desolate!— 
dead!—lying under the anathema of God. The Church 
unity is the unity and peace of the churchyard.”! And in 
the same tone the Swedish preacher, Cervin Steenhoff, says, 
“Tt is now the time of the humiliation of the Church!—she 
is dead!—all has become contentious, desolate, and void!” ? 

Sweden is now (besides Norway) the only country in 
Europe where the genuine Lutheran doctrine reigns in the 
pulpit. To this the profound ignorance of the majority 
of the clergy found no obstacle; for the customary forms 
and catchwords of the system can be taken up and used 
by any one readily enough. “ Nothing is easier here,” says 
Trottet, “than to become suspected of heresy;” and, ac+ 
cording to him, this state of the Church in Sweden is one 
of the chief causes of the moral corruption that prevails 
in that country. A destructive formalism has gained the 
upper hand; religious indifference has, by degrees, under- 
mined the strictness of manners formerly existing, and public 
opinion authorizes and protects, in many cases, the most 
revolting immoralities.® 

“Defunct orthodoxy” is just now one of the favourite 
phrases in Sweden, and in Germany also; for the bad reli- 
gious condition of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 
is often laid to its charge. But there is a great mistake in 
saying this. The Lutheran orthodoxy was not dead in 
Germany—on the contrary, as long as it existed it was 
extremely lively, and for two centuries (1550-1750) it 
maintained a struggle against Calvinism; then against Arndt 
and his followers; then against Calixtus and the Helmstadt 
school; then against Spener, Pietism and the Halle school; 
and most vigorously and successfully did it defend itself 
ayvainst all attempts to enfeeble it, until at length Rationalism 
became master both of it and orthodoxy, its rivals—and 
built its hut upon their ruins. What is in Germany consi- 
dered the effect of “defunct orthodoxy,” was much more the 


1 HenesTenBere’s “ Kirch.-Ztg.,” vol. xxxiv., 172-151, 
2 Kurerorn’s ‘ Kirch.-Zeitschrift,” 1856, p. 713, &c. 
* GeLZER’s ‘* Mon.-Blitter,” xi. 143. 


§ 2 


260 MAINTENANCE OF ORTHODOXY. 


natural and inevitable psychological and ecclesiological con- 
sequence of the Lutheran system itself; and of which the 
historical proof may easily be given. 

If mention is made of this “ defunct orthodoxy” in Sweden, 
it should be remembered that it is nothing new in that 
country, but has been its normal state since the Reformation. 
The Swedish State Church has remained, down to the pre- 
sent time, in sole undisturbed possession, and has not 
tolerated the smallest deviation from the strictest Luther- 
anism. Serious theological controversies do not occur in 
Swedish history, with the exception of the liturgical dispute 
occasioned by the efforts of King John to return towards 
Catholicity; and the Swedish clergy have had no need of 
theological knowledge to defend themselves against strange 
doctrines. When Gustavus Vasa desired to convert the 
inhabitants of Helsingland to Lutheranism, he did not send 
to them distributors of Swedish Bibles, or preachers of the 
new doctrine, but he wrote to them, “ that if they did not 
forthwith become Lutherans, he would have a hole made in 
the ice on the Deele Lake, and they should all be drowned.”! 
Thus it has been ever. The sword, the dungeon, exile, or 
in modern times pecuniary fines, have been the approved 
methods of preventing religious disputes, or of settling them 
if they had already broken out. And this appeared so much 
the more necessary, since, as the celebrated Atterbom re- 
marks, “ the state of public instruction, and the education of 
the clergy, were far below what they had been in the imme- 
diately preceding papal epoch.” ? Charles IX. and Gustavus 
Adolphus adopted, with obstinate Catholics, the simple 
method of cutting their heads off; and when, at the end of 
the seventeenth and the beginning of the following century, 
several Swedes—Ulstadius, Peter Schifer, Ulhagius, and 
Erik Molin, became perplexed with the Lutheran main doc- 


' This fact is mentioned in the periodical called the ‘‘ Frey,” issued by 
the Professor of Upsala. It occurs in an article on Wieselgren’s work 
concerning Gustavus Vasa. The article has been translated in the ‘‘Annales 
de la Philosophie Chret.,” published by Bonnetty. Paris, 1848, vol. xvii. 
p. 282. 2 The same, p, 291. 


ABSENCE OF RELIGIOUS LIFE. 261 


trine of “Imputation,” and spoke of the necessity of “ good 
works,” Molin was banished—Ulstadius condemned to the 
house of correction for his life (and remained there for thirty 
years)—and Schafer and Ulhagius were condemned to 
death!! And in accordance with the same principle were the 
“¢ Awakened,” or “ Readers,” treated thirty years ago. 

It seems to be difficult to assign the precise cause why, 
for a long time past, religious life has so much departed 
from Sweden, and all spiritual action has become so 
mechanical. Foreign German influence is not the cause; 
but the observer cannot fail to be immediately struck with 
the effects produced by the great secularizing of the clerical 
orders, as well as by their want of due culture and prepara- 
tion. A brief training for a few months is deemed sufficient to 
qualify a man to assume the pastoral office, and any one may 
pass with the greatest ease from any employment or trade 
at once into the ranks of the clergy—a position rendered 
attractive by social distinctions and good emoluments; nay, 
he may even become a bishop, without possessing so much 
as a smattering of theological culture.? This was done by the 
poet Tegner, and also by a Professor of Botany. The care 
of providing for wives and children, and the quantity of civil 
business devolving upon the clergy, does the rest. It 
appears almost enigmatical that a people that has produced 
a Linneus, Berzelius, Geijer, and Atterbom—that has a 
richly-endowed Church and two universities—a Church, too, 
which, like other Protestant Churches, has raised the postu- 
late of general Bible investigation into a religious principle— 
it is truly enigmatical that such a people should have done 
nothing at all in theology. The former Professor of 
Theology, afterwards Bishop Reuterdahl says: “ Theolo- 
gical instruction could hardly be less organized than it is in 


1“ Nordische Sammlungen,” 1755, vol. i., pp. 44-51. See also the 
Berlin ‘‘ Allg. Kirchen-Ztg.” 1849, p. 752. The sentence of death, pro- 
nounced by the Spiritual Court at Abo, was commuted by the secular 
authorities into imprisonment. 

?See the examples adduced by Liebetrut in HenestenBEReG, vol. 
xxxiv. p. 163. 


262 SECESSION OF THE “ READERS.” 


Sweden. Ignorance, the love of gain and want of under- 
standing in the clergy, are the causes why so many people 
in every parish think they can do without the Church.”? 
The Swedes need only look over to Denmark, and its now 
wholly Rationalistic clergy, to see the consequences of the 
neglect of theological studies. They have only the choice 
of retaining their Lutheran orthodoxy and renouncing 
theology —or of admitting theology at the cost of the 
former. It was natural that, in a country where the power 
of the State had maintained with such severity the old penal 
laws concerning religion; where the clergy are so enslaved 
that the secular authorities dictate Church penances, and 
when these have been performed the pastor must at once 
absolve every offender—it was natural that under these 
circumstances they should renounce theology, and prefer 
remaining good Lutherans. Symbolic orthodoxy and scien- 
tific theology can no more subsist peacefully together in 
Sweden than in other Protestant countries. Since their 
great quarrel in a preceding century, no attempt at recon- 
ciliation has ever succeeded, and each party of the married 
pair has sued for, obtained, and is prepared to present to its 
ci-devant partner—a deed of separation ! 

The only movement that for many years has taken place 
in the stagnant waters of the Swedish Church, has been that 
made by the “ Readers,” who were in fact, at first, nothing 
more than zealous Lutherans. Their motto was, “ Justi- 
fication by Faith alone,” and the non-freedom of man’s 
will; and they separated themselves from the Church 
because the clergy did not preach to them-this favourite 
doctrine —either with sufficient distinctness or often enough.” 
When the Lutheran State Church attempted to crush these 
poor people under the whole weight of a brutal police- 
despotism, hundreds allowed themselves to be brought to 
ruin rather than submit, or they emigrated, and fled into the 
deserts of Lapland. When the “Readers” had already 

1 See the extracts from his writings in HencstensBera’s ‘“ K.-Ztg.,” 


vol xxxviii., p. 151. 
2 ** Neue Preuss,-Zeitung,” 18th Decemb., 1856. 


THE CHURCH IN NORWAY. 263 


begun to administer baptism and the communion by one of 
Ae own number, they betook themselves to the English 
and American Baptist Missionaries, and got themselves bap- 
tized anew. In the year 1853, the utter inefficiency of 
dealing with sectarians by the infliction of punishments was 
acknowledged. In despite of all such penal measures, the 
sects of Baptists had been continually increasing in the once 
purely Lutheran Sweden; and the “awakening” of which 
we hear so much in the reports from Sweden, consists chiefly 
in the progress made over the whole country by the Anglo- 
American sects—the irreconcileable enemies of Lutheranism— 
and the preachers sent out by the Independents, Baptists, 
and Methodists. 

The condition of the Swedish Church, in its relation to 
the State, is to be again met with in Norway—with this 
difference only, that, in consequence of the former connection 
with Denmark, the dependence of the clergy is still greater 
than in Sweden. Here, also, the power over the Church is 
in the hands of the civil authorities. The sovereign rules 
the Church through the Minister of Public Worship, and the 
clergy are not represented at the Storthing; for which 
reason it was found possible—in the year 1844—to introduce 
religious freedom into Norway, which it was not in Sweden, 
The desire for a more independent position of the Church is 
frequently expressed here, especially among the clergy. 

Norway had, formerly, through the connection with Den- 
mark (which was broken in 1813), been inoculated with 
Rationalism. It made rapid progress, and most of the 
pulpits were soon in possession of unspiritual Rationalists, 
who presoned dry moral lectures, or treatises on political 
economy.! 

When the rustic, Nielsen Hauge, by his sermons and 
writings, succeeded in awakening a great number of people 
of the lower class to a feeling opposed to the infidelity of 
the preachers, he had to atone for it by an enormous fine 
and ten years imprisonment—from the consequences of which 


1Thus says the report on the state of the Church of Norway in 
Henestenserc’s “ K.-Ztg.,” vol. xxxiii., p. 566. 


264 DECAY OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 


he died, in 1824;! but his followers, the Haugeans, were 
treated with indulgence. The people endeavoured to find in 
the sermons of lay preachers a compensation for what they 
failed to receive in the Church. At present, among the 
younger generation of the clergy, areturn to Lutheran ortho- 
doxy is perceptible; but it is said this tendency has no 
support in the religious feelings of the people.” 

On the whole, the latest German writer on the subject 
describes the state of the Church as wretched, as one which 
affords abundance of weapons for the attacks of invading 
sectarians.? In the rural districts of both Sweden and 
Norway, the weekly divine services have fallen off univer- 
sally. As to Confession, nothing remains of it but ‘the 
Absolution,” which here, as in Denmark, is given to every one 
without any previous recapitulation of his sins; without the 
applicant having even to answer a single question with a “yes” 
or “no.” In like manner, the visitation of the sick is no 
longer practised. The complete decay of Church discipline 
is here also complained of. There is said (by the same 
German observer) to be but a small circle of religiously 
awakened people, opposed to a great mass which is lax and 
thoughtless. There also the pews of the higher classes and 
official persons frequently stand empty.2 The laity in 
general complain of their preachers—their worldly-minded- 
ness—their neglect of all care for souls. The clergy plead, 
in their defence, that they are overwhelmed with worldly 
business,° and also the size of their parishes—their own 
farming and family cares; and the great distance from them 
and each other of most of the members of their congregation. 

The reference to this last-mentioned circumstance brings 
us to a feature common to the whole Protestant North—I 
mean the disproportion of the number of preachers to the 


 Forester’s ‘“‘ Norway,” 1848 and 1849. London, 1856, p. 308. 

? Krause’s “ K.-Ztg.,” 1859, p. 639. 

* HENGsTENBERG’s “ K.-Ztg.,” vol. lxiii., pp. 769-781. 

* Sarwey, in his ‘‘ Theological Studies and Criticisms,” 1849, ii. 774. 
5’ HENGSTENBERG’s ‘“ K,-Z,,” vol. Ixii., p. 499. 

* Sarwey, ‘“ Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” ii. 780. 


INADEQUATE SUPPLY OF CLERGYMEN. 265 


population, and the spiritual incapacity of the Church con- 
sequent on this disproportion. In Norway, there are only 
485 clergymen to 1,500,000 souls; on an average, there 
are about 3,600 persons to every parish; and, notwithstand- 
ing the enormous extent of the parishes, several of them— 
as many as five—are often united in the hands of one 
pastor, in order that he, with his wife and children, may 
enjoy a more abundant income. Even the English visitor, 
Forester, expresses his astonishment at this pluralism on a 
large scale, and the neglect of the people for the benefit of 
rich priests’ families! There are many parishes of from 
6000 to 12,000 inhabitants, and these scattered over immense 
districts, who have but one preaeher, and but very rarely 
two.2 Thus, Holstein has, for 544,419 almost exclusively 
Lutheran inhabitants, only 192 preachers, two or three of 
whom also belong to one and the same Church.’ In all the 
Scandinavian countries taken together, the Protestant Church 
is, on the whole, very badly served; that is to say, the 
number of churches and preachers is quite inadequate, so 
that immense masses of persons have it not in their power 
to attend any religious service. In the Duchy of Schleswig, 
not a few livings have been abolished since the Reformation, 
because the clergyman, with his wife and children, found the 
income too small; so that there are parishes of 13,000 people, 
dispersed over a vast breadth of country, with only two 
preachers. In the same way, in Farther Pomerania, in 1850, 
thirty formerly independent parishes, with as many churches, 
with a population of 15,000, had, through combination with 
other districts, disappeared.‘ In all these Scandinavian 
countries, there are innumerable persons who have never in 
their lives entered the House of God.’ In the Russian 
countries, especially in the Baltic provinces, the Lutherans, 
whose number in 1854 was 1,834,224, had 192 preachers ; 


1“ Norway,” p. 309. 

2“ Darmst. Allg. Kirch.-Ztg.,” 1856, p. 1650. 
? Messyer’s “ K.-Ztg.,” 1861, p. 282. — 

* Moser’s ‘ Kirchenblatt.,” 1856, p. 188. 

5“ Darmst. Allg. K.-Ztg.,” 1856, p. 1650. 


266 SPIRITUAL DESTITUTION. 


so that there was one for every 4394 souls.! Thus the 
people have to suffer, because clergymen deem it to be 
right, proper, and necessary that they should have and 
provide for wives and children ! 


1 RevTer’s “‘ Repert.,” vol, xciv., p. 168, 


267 


THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES IN GERMANY. 


GeErRMaAnyY is the birth-place of the Reformation. Within the 
mind of a German man, and that man the greatest of his age, did 
the Protestant doctrine spring up. Before the superiority and 
creative energy of that one mind did the aspiring, active 
portion of the nation humbly and trustingly bend the knee! 
In him —in that union of strength and intellect — they 
recognised their master; they lived in his thoughts—he 
appeared to them as the hero in whom the nation, with: all 
its characteristics, was incorporated. They admired him; 
they gave themselves over to him because they perceived 
in him their country’s most potential, powerful self; because 
it was their feelings that he expressed more clearly, more 
eloquently, and with greater power than they would them- 
selves have been able to give utterance to them. Thus has 
Luther’s name become for Germany not merely the name of 
a distinguished man—he is himself the very core and kernel 
of a period of national life—the centre of a new circle of 
ideas—the most condensed expression of that religious and 
ethical mode of thought peculiar to the German mind, and 
from whose mighty influence even those who resisted it 
could not themselves wholly withdraw. Luther’s writings 
have long ceased to be popularly read; and are only now 
consulted by the learned for historical purposes; but the 
image of his personality is still vivid. His name, his heroic 


268 PROTESTANTISM IN GERMANY. 


figure, still work with an enchanter’s power upon the high 
and low; and from the magic of his name the Protestant 
doctrine still derives a portion of its vital power. In other 
countries, people feel an aversion to adopt the name of the 
originator of a predominant creed; but in Germany and in 
Sweden there are still thousands who are proud to call them- 
selves “ Lutherans.” 

Although Protestant Germany forms the smaller portion 
of the nation, yet this smaller portion is both politically and 
intellectually the stronger. Politically stronger, for the 
German dynasties are chiefly Protestant, and—what is very 
important in Germany—the administration, even in Catholic 
districts, is mostly entrusted to Protestant officials, who are 
zealous for their religion. it is intellectually stronger, for 
the great majority of the high schools are wholly, or chiefly, 
in Protestant hands; and the entire body of literature, which 
has formed fora hundred years the mental aliment of the 
higher and middle classes, is, in its widest sense, Protestant— 
that is to say, it has arisen out of the great rupture with the 
whole past history of Christianity, which the Reformation, in 
conjunction with the humanism so hostile to the Church 
had brought about, and which two centuries and a half have 
rendered permanent. Ever since Lessing extended the 
Protestant view of the development of Christianity, and of 
the Church, to the earliest ages, it has applied to the 
Apostolic times the same standard of motive and cha- 
racter by which Protestantism has learned to measure the 
following centuries. By the theory long prevalent (though 
not always entertained with a full consciousness of its effects, 
and mingled with much obscurity), viz: that the Christian 
Church, on the whole, was a failure, and had brought more 
mischief and falsehood than truth and blessing to the human 
race, the whole history of Christian nations and states had 
been rendered soulless and trivial. What had been left by 
the Reformation, in place of the old Church edifice, could not 
possibly claim the sympathy and veneration of the educated 
classes. It is now generally acknowledged, even by believing 
Protestants, that the whole state of the Church, and of the 


LUTHERANISM AND THEOLOGY. 269 


Protestant theology of that time, had “estranged from 
Christianity many of the noblest and most gifted men of the 
nation;” and thus was formed that atmosphere of infidelity, of 
contempt of all that was Christian, and in which heathenism, 
or Islamism, appeared more human, more invigorating, and 
more poetical than the gloomy Galilean doctrine of self- 
abnegation and sanctification. 

Gervinus has said, in his rough, reckless manner, “ We 
still stand, on the average, much at the same point as Goethe 
and Schiller, Voss and Jean Paul, Winkelmann and Wieland, 
Forster and Lichtenberg—all of whom ‘ released themselves 
from the bonds of dogmatic Christianity.’”! Sixteen years 
have passed since then, and these words are just as true now 
as they were at that period. Aversion to Christianity, as ° 
soon as it attempts to assert itself in life or in science, is still 
general amongst educated persons, and it opposes itself at 
every step, as an obstacle, to orthodox Protestantism, as well 
as to the Catholic Church; only that the latter is for several 
reasons—and especially because of its firmer organisation 
and greater power of resistance—more energetic, active, and 
universal. A campaign against the Catholic Church will 
unite all that is Protestant, positive and negative, and troops 
of the most heterogeneous combatants, under one banner, and 
bring about a transitory reconciliation among them. The 
events in Germany and Switzerland, from 1845 to 1847, and 
lately again in Baden and Wiirtemberg, have proved this. . 

In other Protestant countries the internal want of harmony 
between the Protestant system and theological science, has 
mostly led, as we have seen, to the decay or ruin of the 
latter. In Germany, however, the theological impulse, united 
to the general intellectual current in the country, has always 
been too strong and irresistible. Lutheran orthodoxy has 
not indeed been able to extinguish it, but it has for nearly 
two hundred years reduced theology to the condition of a 
subservient handmaiden; and eventhough it be but a mutilated 
theology, deprived of its two eyes—Bible study and Church 
history—and limited to dogmatic and polemic discussion. 

1“ Die Mission der Deutschkatholiken.” Heidelberg, 1845. 


270 VICTORY OF THEOLOGICAL RATIONALISM. 


After Pietism had inflicted some severe wounds on ortho- 
doxy, theology roused itself to the struggle for its emanci- 
pation; and then was the former mistress soon overthrown, 
and did not long survive. 

This invasion and complete victory won by theological 
Rationalism in Germany, almost without a battle, is a re- 
markable and unique event in history, and one of which the 
causes have not yet been sufficiently explained. By thelong 
contest with the Helmstadt school, and subsequently with 
that of Spener, and Pietism, Lutheran theology had been 
internally and logically developed, but at the same time the 
logical and moral antinomianism to which it led became 
obvious to the most purblind sight. Towards the middle of 
’ the eighteenth century came also the influence of the new 
Biblical and historical studies. As long as the rule of the 
Lutheran system maintained itself consistently within the 
Concordien formula, the study of the Bible was, of course, 
intentionally neglected. It evidently shrank from the inevi- 
table conflict with the symbolic books. Professor Heinrich 
Majus, of Giessen,' when he entered on his office, mentioned 
with censure that with very few, if any, of the universities 
of Germany, the interpretation of the “ Holy Scriptures was 
made an object of earnest study.” Spener gives the same 
testimony, and lately Tholuck and Liicke? have again alluded 
to the fact that, through the whole seventeenth century, Exe- 
gesis had fallen completely into disuse and disfavour. In 
the year 1742, also, Bengel complains, in the preface to his 
“ Gnomon,” that “the manifold misuse—nay, malicious con- 
tempt of Scripture, had risen to the highest point, even 
among those who thought themselves to be philosophical and 
very spiritual persons.” As soon as the study of the Bible 
had come again into fashion, partly through means of Ben- 
gel himself, and partly as a reaction against the Pietistic 
movement, the dissolution of the. Lutheran doctrine began. 
The tone of historical criticism, and especially the concep- 
tion of Church History in Germany, contributed greatly to 

1“ Praxis Pietatis, sive Synopsis Theologiz Moralis.” Gisce, 1697, 
Pref. 2 * Deutsche Zeitschrift,” 1854, p. 178. 


hy 
% 


NN 


PROTESTANT CONCEPTION OF CHURCH HISTORY. 277% 


this dissolution. The idea that the whole course of develop- 
ment of Christianity, from the time of the Apostles, had 
been a continual and ever-increasing malformation, until at 
last, at the Reformation, this utterly distorted and ruined re- 
ligion was awakened to new life, had been the prevailing 
notion since the sixteenth century. In this sense were all 
histories taught and written. A man who deserves to be 
called the most profound and acute theologian, of the first 
period of Rationalism, describes this state of opinion :— 

“‘ Among Protestants, Church History is nothing else than 
the historical proof of the necessity of a Church Reforma- 
tion, and of a perpetual increase of corruption, both in doc- 
trine and life. According to the Protestants, the Church 
had been—at least, since the eighth century—a sink of ig- 
norance and corruption. All the heads of the Church had 
been dreadfully false teachers, and the Church itself a com- 
plete madhouse.” He then remarks: “The extreme care 
with which, on the Protestant side, every fact has been col- 
lected which could be made to afford the smallest testimony 
for the former prevalence of corruption in the Church—the 
injustice with which all former chiefs and heads of the Church 
have been represented as tyrants, and all the members of it 
as mere heathens—and the carelessness with which the good 
that has always been present in the Church, notwithstanding 
the great abuses that had crept into it, is overlooked; this 
defect in Church History, as treated by Protestants, has 
been eagerly employed by the enemies of Christianity for 
their own purposes.' 

Tollner quotes an expression of Frederick II.2 in one of 
his writings, in which the monarch states the customary 
Protestant account of Church History, namely, “ that it was a 
great drama performed by rogues and hypocrites, at the ex- 
pense of the deluded masses ;” and such histories he supposes 





1 TOLLNER’s “‘ Kurze Vermischte Aufsiitze.” Frankfort, a. d. Oder, 
1769, ii. 87, et seq. 
* The Preface to ‘‘ Abrégé de l’Histoire Ecclésiastique de Fleury.” 
—Berne. Berlin,1767. The book is by De Prades. That the Preface 
_ was written by the King, Téllner probably did not know, 


y 
f 


fo 


Jf 


ee 
A 
2 


72 DEFECTS OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY. 


had been the real cause of the King’s contempt for Christi- 
anity. 3 

This manner of regarding the history of Christianity 
completely coincided with the reigning mode of thought and 
literature of the time, and through it was developed that 
spiritual revolt from Christianity which was completed in 
Germany by the simultaneous and reciprocal action of the 
clergy and the educated classes upon one another. The 
theology of the Reformers and their followers established 
the notion that God had withdrawn Himself from the Church 
after the demise of the Apostles—that He had resigned His 
place to Satan, who thenceforward had undertaken the 
office which, according to the promises in the Gospel, the 
Holy Ghost should have fulfilled—and so established a dia- 
bolical millennium, which continued until the appearance of 
Luther.1 When faith in the infallible truth of the symbolic 
books became in a few years extinct,? in consequence of the 
new Biblical studies—when, after the accession of Frede- 
rick IJ., Lutheran orthodoxy lost more and more the protec- 
tion of the ecclesiastical power of the State—when the Theo- 
logians began more and more mercilessly to expose the de- 
fects and contradictions of the Lutheran reformation doc- 
trine,® then all the supports of religious feeling at once were 
tumbled down and prostrated. The entire education of the 
people, the ideas they had imbibed with their mother’s milk, 
all was calculated to make them regard the whole history of 
Christianity before the Reformation as achurchyard covered 
with decayed and sunken tombstones, and with mouldering 
bones, and where ghostly shadows alone were wandering. 


1See also Semuer’s “ Lebenbeschreibung,” ii. 156, concerning the 
part in Church history assigned to the devil by the Protestant world. 

2‘Tnthe year 1770 there existed not a single theologian in a Protestant 
university who would approve any work that did not confine itself 
within the systematic formule.”—Sacx’s ‘‘ Lebensbeschreibung,” i. 252. 
What a change must have taken place in fifteen years! 

* It is especially in T6LLNER’s writings (which, on dogmatic subjects, 
are far more important than those of Semler) that the decomposing pro- 
cess going on in Protestant theology and the Genesis of Rationalism may 
be perceived. 


PROGRESS OF “ RATIONAL” CHRISTIANITY. 273 


With the faith in the Divine Guidance of the Church fell 
also all faith in its divine origin. The root was judged by 
the stem; the beginning judged by the subsequent career 
—judged and condemned ! 

And thus, then, there remained for the men who held office 
under, and got their bread by Christianity, nothing else to 
fall back upon but that aggregate of empty, unsupported 
notions concerning God, morality, and immortality, to which 
the name of Rationalism has been given. 

So much the more certain and powerful became the effect 
produced by the writings of Semler, Lessing, Reimarus; by 
the prestige of the example of Frederick II.; and by the 
philosophy of Immanuel Kant. In the course of afew years 
the whole class of German Protestant preachers—and the 
theologians at the universities the first amongst them—had 
fallen off from the old positive faith. The entire of the new 
generation of clergy grew up in Rationalism ; and stone after 
stone was taken from the Temple, and carried away by its 
own priests. From the pulpits even of village churches the 
new “ Rational” Christianity was preached; whilst only a 
few remote congregations remained in undisturbed possession 
of the old faith;' and in the cities the preachers were often 
Rationalists before the best educated among the middle classes 
had fallen victims to that wide-spread Deistical enlightenment, 
which had been so carefully cherished by the new and flourish- 
ing literature of Germany. A Mecklenburg preacher repeats 
what he has heard from the lips of an old clergyman: “ That 
the rapidity with which the mockery of infidelity was effacing 
from language and manners the old forms of faith in that 
country, bordered upon the marvellous.”2 

In France, about the same time, frivolous infidelity had 
seized on the higher ranks of society, but the clergy re- 
mained, on the whole, untouched by it; and even amid the 


’ Thus it is said in the New Dorpat “ Zeitschrift Theol.,” i., 588: ‘ In 
many out-of-the-way districts of Westphalia, the Rhine country, and 
Western Schleswig, there are parishes that have never been touched by 
the Rationalist poison.” 

* RHEINWALD’s * Repert.,”’ viii. 259. 


274 . PRINCELY EPISCOPAL SUPREMACY. 


storms of the Revolution, it was only a comparatively small 
number of priests that became apostates. The great ma- 
jority remained, even under the most fearful persecutions, 
true to their faith. In Protestant Germany, on the contrary, 
it was theology especially which completed the work of 
destruction—it was the clerical class that introduced to con- 
gregations, both in town and country, their open or veiled 
Naturalism, and brought on that defection of the masses 
from Christianity before which men now stand wringing their 
hands and knowing not what to do. 

Rationalism has not, on the whole, had any great influence 
on the relations of Church and State, or on the constitution 
of the Church. The Reformation had already here done all 
that was essential. Germany—Wittenberg, is the true birth- 
place of princely episcopal supremacy and territorialism. 
The princes received the supreme power from the hands of 
theologians, not “ although,” but “ because” they were princes. 
It was their right and their duty, they were told, to under- 
take the government of the Church, as a branch and an 
efflux of their political sovereignty. Whena man now living 
says, “ Let the name of Episcopacy (of the prince) be left as 
a memorial of the disgrace of the Church until she shall re- 
pent and do penance,” he expresses a thought that was 
totally foreign to the first and second generation of German 
Protestants—which is still foreign to the majority of preachers 
and Consistorial Councils, even though many laymen may be 
of the same way of thinking as Hommel.! 

Since the Princes and Estates of the Empire in Ger- 
many have come into possession, to an unlimited extent, of 
Protestant ecclesiastical power, there have arisen in Germany 
as many Churches as there are principalities or territories. 
The attempt to establish a united German Protestant, Lu- 
theran, or Calvinistic Reformed Church was never made. 
Every one was content with the existing state of things; 
that in every little territory there should be a different 
Evangelical Church ; and that this crowd of Churches should 


*Hommet, “Die wahre Gestalt der Bayerischen Landeskirche,” 
1850, p. 26. 


STATE-DEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCHES. 275 


have no one point of union except antagonism to the Catholic 
Church. At the Diets the Corpus Evangelicorum formed a 
kind of representative body ; and there was, on the whole, 
much similarity of doctrine, although the individual Churches 
had their own symbolic books, and very various liturgies. 
And thus there was, in fact, only an aggregate of National 
Churches. Before the dissolution of the German Em- 
pire, the number of independent separate Churches was 
much greater. “Germany,” says Ernest Solomon Cyprian,! 
“has, with its isolated Evangelical Churches, if we reckon 
the free Equestrian order (the Ritterschaft), more than a 
thousand independent rulers; for each one can do with his 
own congregation all that the Pope can doin the Roman See. 
Who can expect that so many masters, of such various tem- 
peraments and inclinations, and exposed to such different 
temptations to sin and disorder, can ever be brought to har- 
monious agreement?” This state of things, Cyprian thinks, 
both explains and palliates the numerous faults and abomina- 
tions of the German Church system. The Church (he says) 
is only answerable for her doctrine, and that, fortunately, 
is everywhere good, sound Lutheranism ! 

There are now in Germany about thirty-eight Protestant 
Churches, each of which is independent of the other, and has 
its own organization; and since in each of the States the 
Church has been degraded into a mere branch of the Admi- 
nistration—has been inserted as a wheel in the great State 
machine—it has come to pass that all the threads of ecclesias- 
tical government come together, and are united in the hands 
of a single Government official, the Minister of Public Wor- 
ship. Thus, in Saxony, for instance, it depends entirely on 
the judgment of their Minister what amount of attention he 
will pay to the recommendation of the Consistory of the 
country in Church affairs;? and, as a matter of fact, the 
destinies of the Saxon Church are wholly within his grasp. 

1 Preface to Groscu, ‘“‘ Nothw. Vertheidigung der Evangelischen 
Kirche,” 1745, p. 33. 


2 See hereupon Lenmann, “ Zur Frage der Neugestaltung der abe 
luth. Kirche Sachsens.” Dresden, 1861, p. 6. 


yg 


276 THE “ UNION.” 


The case is the same in Hanover; the Minister acts in 
Church affairs without asking the advice or opinion of the 
Consistory, and the Consistory has really nothing more to do 
than to execute the commands of the Minister.! 

If in some countries the institution of Synods has been 
added to that of the Consistory and Monarchial Episcopacy, 
it has imparted no especial dignity to the Constitutional 
structure ; for the Synods are chiefly composed of theologians 
and preachers, and the lay element is very sparsely repre- 
sented in them; whilst the decrees of Synods and of the 
Church government united, have proved impotent when op- 
posed to the resistance of the laity in Bavaria, Baden, and 
the Palatinate. 

_ The “ Union” which was begun in Prussia, and imitated else- 

where, has, since 1817, amalgamated the Lutheran and Cal- 
vinist Reformed Churches, and given an essentially different 
form to German Protestantism. The new Church thus 
formed was to take the name of the “ Evangelical Church ;” 
and it was the Prussian Government especially which in- 
sisted upon the introduction of this name, because “ Pro- 
testant” was a party name, and did not sound so well as 
“ Evangelical.”2, The members of the united Church have, 
therefore, ceased to be Lutherans or Calvinists, and have 
become “Evangelicals.” The names of “Lutheran” and 
“Protestant” were to be omitted wherever it was possible ; 
and lately the Consistory of the Province of Pomerania has 
declared that the general term “ Evangelical” does not any 
longer signify what it did in 1818. It has already passed into 
State documents—as, for example, into that of the Constitu- 
tion of 1850. It does not there specially designate ‘the 
union,” but is a collective term to express opposition to Ca- 
tholicism. In official notifications the term “ Evangelical” 
is, therefore, not to be discontinued.® 


1 Revter’s “ Repert.,” vol. lxiv., p. 277. 

? See Haupt’s ‘“‘ Hanbuch iiber die Religions-Angelegenheiten im K. 
Preussen,” 1822, ii. 160. Kampz, ‘‘ Aunalen,” 1821, p. 341. 

*See Wirsixe, “Die reformirte Kirche in Deutschland.” Altona, 
1853, p. 123. 


CONDITION OF THE GERMAN LUTHERAN CHURCH. 277 


In consequence of this “ Union,” then, there are now, theo- 
logically considered, three Churches, instead of the former 
two, in Germany—the Lutheran, the Reformed, and the 
United or Evangelical. Genuine Calvinism, for which the 
Dordrecht decisions serve as a standard, has almost died 
out in Germany ; for there is said to be left only one congre- 
gation professing it. With the other, not united congrega- 
tions, ‘ Reformed” generally means nothing more than that 
the Lutheran doctrine of the Communion is rejected. On 
the other hand, the old Lutheran Church has also vanished 
from the German soil. The name can but be claimed by the 
31,000 Prussian Lutherans who have remained as a separate 
body; but these are not recognised by the Lutherans of 
Saxony and elsewhere as true disciples of Luther—on the 
contrary, they are reproached with having made important 
and objectionable variations from his doctrine. The former 
Lutheran congregations, which have joined the Union, can, 
however, scarcely be called Lutheran any longer, for the mode 
of celebrating the Communion has been accommodated to that 
of the “ Reformed,” or “ United,” and it is upon this point 
that the most decisive and distinguishing mark of a Church 
union lies. There are also certain ceremonies and institu- 
tions in which Lutheranism formerly differed from Calvinism 
—these have been abandoned, as well as, and before all 
others, that of private confession. When, therefore, Stahl 
complains (as he did lately), of a threatened approaching 
absorption of the Lutheran Church into that of the Union,! 
it may be answered that in Germany the German Lutheran 
Church now only exists in the wishes and yearnings of some 
few theologians, pastors, and jurists, and by no means is a 
reality or concrete church establishment. There is only the 
difference of “more” or “less” between the united and non- 
united churches. 

The “ Union” was the personal act of the King of Prussia, 
effected by him under the influence of his dynastic interests, 
and with the view of producing an ecclesiastical reconciliation 
between the Royal House of Prussia (which, since 1613, had 


1.“ Die lutherische Kirche und die Union.” Prefaee, p. viii. 


278 OBJECT OF THE “ UNION.” 


renounced Lutheranism and adhered to the doctrine of 
Calvin) and the preponderating Lutheran population of the 
country. An Agenda, the work of the king himself, was to 
serve as the chief cement of the Union; but it struck upon 
greater difficulties than the Union itself, as the introduction 
of liturgical elements into the sefvice was regarded as a dan- 
gerous approximation to the practice of the Catholic Church. 
On the whole, “the Union” was accepted with marvellous 
ease and promptitnde by both preachers and congregations ; 
people were pretty well agreed that the doctrines in which 
they differed were of no special importance, and might be 
properly left alone. It was the question of fees for con- 
fessions, and not upon any difference of doctrine, that 
made Schleiermacher, for a short time, fear that the work of 
peace would be wrecked. It was considered, too, that a 
united Church would be stronger and much more respectable 
as opposed to Catholicity. 

Throughout Protestant Germany the disposition of the 
preachers and their congregations was alike favourable to the 
“Union ;” and it was established speedily, and without the 
smallest resistance, in Nassau, the Bavarian Rhine provinces, 
Baden, Anhalt, and Wiirtemberg; and if such was not also the 
case in Saxony, Hanover, Mecklenburg, and Bavaria, the cause 
was discoverable in the small number of Calvinists in those 
countries. 

The King of Prussia had declared that it was a 
ritual merely, and not a doctrinal amalgamation, had been 
proposed by “the Union”—but the two could not be sepa- 
rated. Several preachers and village congregations who felt 
this to be the fact, and perceived that the Union would be 
the annihilation of the Lutheran Confession, wished to hold 
themselves aloof from it; but the Government determined to 
treat them as “dangerous sectaries,” according to the pre- 
scriptions of the general law of the country'—that is to say, 
to inflict punishments upon them, expatriation, imprisonment, 
and military executions. In Berlin the Bishops Eylert and 
Neander had come to a complete understanding. The 
present General-Superintendent, Hahn, marched at the head 


? Ercer’s “ Meine Wanderung durch’s Leben,” iv. 204. 


REVIVAL OF THEOLOGY. 279 


of a military force against the refractory congregations. The 
Minister Altenstein spoke in accordance to the theory of 
“the limited understanding of subjects.” “It was the duty of 
the Government to protect the deluded people against the 
consequences of their own thoughtless actions.”! Thousands 
were compelled toemigrate to America,and not one single voice 
was raised in all Protestant Germany on behalf of the suf- 
ferers, who had been treated with refined cruelty, and against 
whom the whole apparatus of bureaucratic methods of 
coercion had been employed. The entire liberal press 
approved and applauded what had been thus done. 

The Lutherans had rightly judged that “the Union” 
would inevitably lean to two results: the dissolution of 
Lutheranism, and the spread of dogmatic indifferentism— 
that is to say, of infidelity. As soon as Frederick William 
IV. had set free the imprisoned preachers, they established, 
at a synod at Breslau in 1841, a separate Lutheran Church 
—at the head of which was the jurist Huschke, and which 
soon obtained from the Government recognition and tolera- 
tion as a separate sectarian Church. 

Theology, in the meanwhile, had begun again to raise 
itself from the slough of unspiritual, unbelieving Rationalism. 
The accession of Frederick William 1V.—who, as a zealous 
friend of his church, immediately promised and afforded it 
the most powerful protection—gave a new impulse to a ten- 
dency towards the Positive, already awakened and encou- 
raged by excellent teachers at the Universities. The 
believing theologians and preachers saw themselves every- 
where preferred by the Government; the rising generation of 
students turned towards them; and then there came to 
divide the feelings of old and young the catastrophe of 1848, 
which struck terror into the whole~ Protestant clergy of 
North Germany, and showed them in the perspective the 
threatened rule of a multitude destitute of religion through the 
fault of the clergy themselves. In Prussia the reign of 
Hegel’s Pantheism was at an end—the Pantheism to which 
the minister Altenstein had given up both schools and 


 Ever’s ‘‘ Meine Wanderung durch’s Leben,” iv. 235. 


280 “UNION,” OR “ RECONCILEMENT THEOLOGY.” 


pulpits. By degrees theological educational offices were all 
filled by believing professors. Jena and Giessen alone 
remained on the hands of the Rationalists. : In the new and 
now orthodox theology a twofold direction was soon 
observed, proceeding from two different assumptions, and 
leading to very different results. Chiefly on the foundation laid 
by Schleiermacher and Neander, there was formed a “ Union,” 
or “reconcilement theology,” represented by Nitzsch, 
Julius Miiller, Dorner, Liicke, Rothe and others. By the 
side of this arose a Lutheran theology, encouraged especially 
in Erlangen, Dorpat, Leipsig, and Rostock. It declared 
itself at first as merely a Repristination theology, as the doc- 
trine simply of the Concordian formula, translated from the 
language of the sixteenth into that of the nineteenth century. 
But this soon manifested itself to be a sheer impossibility for 
scientifically instructed and energetically disciplined men. 
This dreary undertaking was abandoned to a few pastors, at 
the head of whom was Rudelbach, who could now boast that, 
as “old Lutherans,” they cultivated the only genuine 
Lutheran theology—so that if Luther should come back to 
earth he might recognise the contributors to the “ Zeitschrift 
fur lutherische Theologie” as his own true sons and spiritual 
heirs. In the Universities, with scarcely a single exception, 
they declined having anything to do with this Lutheranism ; 
and in them (the Universities) was formed the party of “the 
new Lutherans,” represented by such men as Kahnis, 
Delitzsch, Kliefoth, Stahl, and others, with whom are also to 
be mentioned Harnack, Vilmar, Petri, and Miinchmeyer. 
These theologians declare that they keep to the Lutheran 
doctrine of Justification, but will not be bound by the 
favourite Protestant dogma of “the invisibility of the 
Church,” and a “universal priesthood.” ‘Since they main- 
tain the idea of a divine institution of the office of the 
Church, in opposition to that of a mere transmission by the 
congregation, they are logically compelled to the acceptance 
of another divinely ordained transmission, namely, that of the 
Sacrament of Ordination. They profess, therefore, opinions 
concerning “office” and “ordination,” “sacrament” and 


DISSATISFACTION WITH THE “ UNION.” 281 


“sacrifice,” which have brought on them from all sides the 
reproach of “Catholicity.” “You are already,” it is said, 
“close to the gates of Rome—a little further on, and you 
will find yourselves inside of the Eternal City.”! That 
this German Lutheran Puseyism must, like the Anglican, 
lead to a union with the Papists, is the opinion expressed 
in the “ Zeitschrift” of Guerike and Rudelbach.? 

Of the preachers in Prussia who are dissatisfied with “ the 
Union,” only a small number has left the Church: the great 
majority has remained within it, partly because they could 
not rely on their congregations—partly because they did not 
like to renounce fixed incomes, to become dependent upon 
the will of their congregations. But they would like to 
throw off the yoke of “the Union,” and withdraw themselves 
as far as possible from a community with Calvinism in 
doctrine and worship. They will not, however, give up 
their position in “the Union Church,” because it is “the 
State Church,” and one does not like to forego its rights and 
advantages by separating from it; and, also, because one 
can contend against “the Union” much more effectually 
when within its precincts than from the outside. The 
Unionists declare that, were the Union dissolved, there 
would be at least five Churches in Prussia. It would be the 
most “un-Prussian act” that could be committed; and it 
is added, “ that they who endeavour to bring about the abo- 
lition of the Union are the enemies of Prussia.” 

The ordinances of Frederick William 1V. sought to con- 
tent the Lutheran or Confessional party—at the head of 
which stood Stahl and Hengstenberg—by various conces- 
sions, and, at the same time, to restrain it within certain 
limits, by a renewed proclamation of the principles of “ the 
Union.” Finally, in the year 1857, “the English Evange- 
lical Alliance” was summoned to Berlin to strengthen the 


1 LEHMANN, pp. 2, 6. 2“ Jahrgang,” 1853, p. 163. 

3 See the declaration of Lenz, ‘‘ Denkschrift iiber die neuesten kirch- 
lichen Bewegungen in Pommern.” Berlin, 1858, p. 43. 

* The General-Superintendent Horrmann, ‘“‘ Verhandlungen der Berl. 
Kirehl. Conferenz.,” 1857, p. 577, 


282 THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE IN BERLIN. 


cause of “the Union.” Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, 
Congregationalists, Calvinist Anglicans, and other sects, im- 
pelled by their common hatred to the Catholic Church to 
fraternize (but reserving their differences), proclaimed that 
“‘they came to Berlin to bear testimony against the pew 
Pharisees and Sadducees.” And the heads of the United 
Lutherans very clearly perceived that the first designation 
was meant to apply to themselves. On the other hand, 
Hoffmann, Nitzsch, Schenkel, Krummacher, Heppe, Sack, 
Kapff, Plitt, Ledderhose, and a numerous band of German 
spiritual kindred, declared that these English-Scotch-Ameri- 
can “ Denominations” were “flesh of their flesh and bone of 
their bone,” and welcome fellow-combatants in the battle 
against exclusive Lutheranism and—“ Rome.”! It ought to 
be considered, they cried out to these members of many 
creeds, that “the Alliance” consisted only of good Protestant 
denominations, and all professing the grand fundamental 
doctrine of Justification by imputed righteousness; aud that 
only by such an “ Alliance” could it be possible to represent, 
on the Protestant side, the essential unity of the Church of 
Christ.” 

When the grand display was over, the Lutherans scorn- 
fully asked, “ What permanent end had been attained by it ?” 
By thus calling in foreigners, they had cast suspicion and 
raised accusations against their German fellow-believers, 
with whom they had hitherto lived in peace; and they had, 
by fraternizing with erroneous believers, confirmed them in 
their error.2 In fact, the result of this “Communion of 
Saints” made visible in Berlin was that the general confu- 
sion was greatly increased, the doubts and uncertainties of 
the laity strengthened, and the people confirmed in the idea 
that theologians and preachers had themselves no fixed doc- 
trines; and that, after all, perhaps doctrine was a matter of 
very little consequence. ‘Thé Union” had previously pro- 
vided that the people should be much puzzled what to believe 


1 Stahl’s speech in HENGSTENBERG’S “ K.-Ztg.,” 1857, p. 553. 
? Lienetrot, “ Die Evangel. Allianz.” Berlin, 1857, p. 27. 
* WANGEMANN’s “ Preuss. Kirchengesch.,” iii. 750. 


TONE OF THE ASSEMBLY. 283 


concerning the Lord’s Supper; and now, through “ the Alli- 
ance,” Baptism also was placed among the articles of 
which no one knew what was to be taught as certainly 
true. 

The chief promoter of the Berlin Alliance Assembly was 
Von Bunsen, who, as Geheimrath Eilers! testifies, was 
possessed with the idea of uniting all non-Catholic Confes- 
sions and Sects into one grand Evangelical union against 
the Catholic Church. After the death of Frederick Wil- 
liam IIT., it was expected and desired, in the higher official 
world of Berlin—where, in the words of the same statesman,? 
“hatred to Catholicity had awakened an interest for the 
Evangelicals” — that Bunsen would be appointed to the 
Ministry of Spiritual Affairs, and the demonstration of the 
Alliance in the German metropolis of Protestantism was 
welcomed in those circles for the same reason. The same 
men who, at the Church Assembly at Bremen in 1852, had 
declared the struggle against “ Rome” to be the first and 
most pressing affair to be considered,’ formed also the kernel 
of the Berlin Alliance gathering. Hatred to the Catholic 
Church, and joy at every injury, real or imaginary, to it, 
constituted the fundamental tone to the whole proceedings 
of the Assembly; but whatever else was of permanent con- 
sequence solely to the Protestant Church system, was 
regarded by the orthodox Lutherans and Confessionalists as a 
blow aimed at themselves. 

Since the illness and retirement of King Frederick Wil- 
liam LV. from the Government, which followed immediately 


1 “ Wanderung durch’s Leben,” iv. 48. 2 Ibid., iv. 41. 

’ Against HENGSTENBERG’s speech concerning the relation of the 
Catholic Church, especially of its mission, arose a cloud of witnesses. 
ZANDER’S speech closed with the words, ‘‘ Let us attack the enemy 
where he is to be found, namely, in the heart of Rome,” and after this, 
“the sluices were opened, and the waters rose high.” ‘ Babel must 
fall.” ‘‘ Rome is an offspring of hell.” ‘‘ The infernal system of the 
Papacy evokes hatred, and the Gospel must, as long as Rome is Rome, 
hold no fellowship with it.” These were the fundamental chords that 
were struck, Thus reports the ‘‘ Neue Preussiche Zeitung,” Sept. 19, 
1852, 


284 STATE OF INDIVIDUAL PROTESTANT CHURCHES. 


the Alliance Assembly, there has been a kind of truce entered 
upon, Those disposed to Lutheranism shake from time to 
time indignantly the ecclesiastical chains that “the Union ” 
has imposed upon them; but they do not talk any longer 
of leaving the State Church. Some have endeavoured to 
establish themselves in countries that have remained Lu- 
theran, but the majority feel themselves weak, because they 
are, in fact, nothing more than a party of theologians and 
pastors, without any flocks to follow them. Gdschel, one of 
the temporal leaders of Lutheranism, mournfully confessed, 
lately, “that the Lutheran Church of Germany was really 
in a dying state. It has lost for the most part its very 
name; in many countries it has already fallen to ruin, and 
the cause of its destruction is the prevailing indifferentism.” 
A reaction has indeed been aroused against the absorption of 
Lutheranism by “the Union,” but it is utterly wanting in 
energy—it is sick with all kinds of hesitations and scruples.! 
“Throughout Germany,” says a Wiirtemberg theologian,? 
“the Lutheran Church is become a mere name to the peo- 
ple; and as to the educated classes and theologians, it has 
with them been cut down to the root. ‘ Lutheran’ has be- 
come in Wiirtemberg an obnoxious and abusive sectarian 
epithet.” : 

If we now proceed to the contemplation of the state of 
individual Churches in Protestant Germany, there is first to 
be noted—especially since 1846—a very active life, and an 
impulse to ecclesiastical construction and improvement among 
the clergy, and the laity friendly to them. Numerous dis- 
cussions at Conferences and Church-days, provincial and 
general, have taken place; and a considerable number of 
institutions of an educational or ethical character, or for the 
physical welfare of the people, have been established through 
the “Home Mission.” But all great and really religious 
problems await their solution; and very few people have 
even made an attempt to come to an understanding as to 
how the problem can be solved. 


1 “ Zeitschrift fiir luth. Theolog.,” 1860, p. 310. 
? In Scnarr’s ‘ Kirchenfreund,” 1857, p. 67. 





THE CHURCH CONSTITUTION. 285 


The very first question—that of the Church Constitution— 
the retention or abolition of the Episcopacy of the temporal 
sovereign—is at the outset calculated to cause a division, 
and to discourage the friends of the Church. In most coun- 
tries, it is thought that the Cesaro-Papacy is a chief cause 
of the decay of the Church. “ What really oppresses our 
Church” (the writer is speaking especially of Saxony) “is 
the bureaucracy and the temporalization of the Church in all 
its institutions, so that all is bureaucratically governed, and 
spiritual affairs are disposed of like any other common 
matter of business.! 

It is now well known what was thought of his own Supre- 
macy by the monarch who, among all the princes of modern 
times, was the wisest and most clear-sighted friend of the 
Protestant Church. The state of the German Churches, we 
find, was in his eyes “absurd and untenable.” “The terri- 
torial system, and the supremacy of the sovereign,” says 
Frederick William IV., “are of such a nature, that one alone 
would be sufficient to kill a church, were it mortal.” He then 
mentions, as a highly characteristic fact, that the abolition of 
the Consistory (in the year 1808), and the transference of its 
business to the government authorities, had been allowed to 
pass as a purely indifferent administrative measure, in which 
“the Church” was by no means concerned. “ With all his 
soul and with all his strength” the king said, “he longed for 
the moment in which he might resign his Church supremacy 
to Bishops, with whatever name it might be thought fit to 
bestow upon them.”? 

Every important change in the state of things previously 
existing is regarded, however, with fear and trembling, even 
though the subserviency of the Church, and its absorption 
into the organism of the State, are felt to be oppressive and 
degrading. “Take from the Church,” it is said, “in its 
present shattered condition—a condition that has become 
much worse since 1848—the support and strength it receives 

1 HENGSTENBERG’S “ K.-Z.,” 1851, p. 99. 


?L. Ricuter’s ‘“ Konig Friedrich-Wilhelm IV., und die Verfassung 
der evangel.-Kirche.” Berlin, 1861, pp. 22, 38. 


286 THE INSTITUTION OF SYNODS. 


from having the sovereign as its head and guardian, and you 
will see that it will fall asunder so completely that no one 
will ever be able to re-unite the fragments.”' Up to this 
time it has never appeared that the orthodox have anywhere 
shewn themselves at all in earnest with the principle of 
Church independence. “The majority” warns and threatens 
them with fatal consequences. The only country in which 
a really new Church constitution has been introduced is 
Baden; and this does, in fact, appear as a terrifying example, 
although its originators regard their modern constitution 
as “a model for the whole of Evangelical Germany.” Their 
plan is a transference of “political constitutionalism” to the 
Church—a change even in the idea and essence of the 
Church—which is hereby transformed from “a community of 
all who think to be justified by faith in Christ” into “a com- 
munity of those who,” according to the expression of a 
government organ, “ believe in the moral order of the 
world.”? 

High hopes were placed for many years in the institution 
of the Synods. In Prussia—in all Germany—great things 
were expected from these assemblies; but they were required 
—that was the first condition—to leave the Episcopacy of 
the sovereign untouched, and restrict themselves to a merely 
deliberative character; and to play the part rather of a 
convocation of Church notables than of a modern constitu- 
tional representative assembly. The first attempts were not 
encouraging. Concerning the ecclesiastical conference of the 
Deputies from German Princes, held in 1845, in Berlin, it is 
said: “ The first attempt was the last, and remained without 
any visible result.”? Then came the splendidly-composed 
General Synod of 1846, including the very flower of theo- 
logical intelligence, and of the religiously-disposed portion 
of the Government. It undertook the solution of the most 
difficult religious questions, and desired to set aside the 


1 Messnrr’s “ K.-Zeitung,” 1860, p. 84. 
* Messner’s “ K.-Ztg.,” July, 1861. 


* Ricnter’s ‘“ Geschichte der evangel. Kirchenverfassung in Deutsch- 
land,” p. 253. : 


OBJECTIONS TO THEM. © 287 


confessional writings of the old Reformers, and introduce a 
new formula. This, which was drawn up by Nitzsch, was, 
however, made so vague and verbose, in order that it might 
be acceptable to all parties, that, as the Lutherans said, “it did 
not attribute too much faith to the unbelieving, nor too much 
incredulity tothe believing.” Although approved bythe Synod, 
it became a jest to the public in general; and a few months after 
the termination of the Synod, no one would have anything to do 
with the resolutions that had been passed by great majorities.! 

New attempts at Synods were made in Berlin in the years 
1856 and 1857. The King desired to have them, but he 
was warned “that, by calling them together, he made 
obvious to all the world the imperfection and disorders of the 
Church, which otherwise had been partly a secret of the 
authorities, and were known in all their extent only to a few 
of the initiated.”2. The impossibility of a Synod devising 
anything tenable in the way of a Confession of Faith, and 
steering a safe course between the claims of the Union and 
of the Lutherans, but especially the anxiety as to the form 
in which this Synodical system was likely to develope itself, 
occasioned this plan to be again dropped. One thing was 
dreaded and detested as the worst that could happen to the 
Church—namely, the rule of “ majorities,” or that Church- 
democracy so warmly recommended by Bunsen. “If,” said 
Rothe, “the majority of those who count themselves as 
members of our Church is to decide concerning matters of 
faith, and doctrine, and worship, the Church established 
according to their notions will soon have little more of a 
Christian Church left in it.”3 — 


If we now turn to the doctrinal-theological side of the 
German Protestant Church, we shall acknowledge, that here 
—even at the present time—is its chief strength and fame. 
That only in Germany does there now exist a real Protestant 


1 HENGSTENBERG, in the ‘‘ Aktenstiicken der Evang. Oberkirchen- 
raths,” 1856, iii., ii., p. 25. 

? HENGSTENBERG, 1856, iii., ii. 

3 Ethik,” iii. 1041. See HenasrenBere’s “ K.-Ztg.,” 1856, p. 533. 


288 A THEOLOGICAL CHURCH. 


theology, a science of theology, is generally acknowledged. 
All other Churches of the Reformation obtain their theological 
nutriment—as far as they feel the want of any—from the 
Germans. Julius Miiller and Liebner are quite in the right 
—the former, when he designates theology, “ with its restless 
spirit of inquiry, and its earnest desire to dig deep,” as the 
actual charisma of German Protestantism ;' the latter, when 
he paints the contrast between the burden of ignorance 
which lies on the Protestant Church—so that the “city upon 
a hill is scarcely any more to be seen, or the eye is blinded 
to it,’—and the splendid efforts of the German theologians of 
the present day.” 

The Protestant Church of Germany is, before all things, and 
essentially, a Theological Church. Theologians, literati, learned 
university men, created it, and fixed on it, ineffaceably, the stamp 
of their own thoughts and actions. Theologians form its only 
authority, and, through the advice they give to princes, may be 
called its rulers. Its “churches” are, consequently, “schools,” 
or “lecture-halls ;” and its “pulpits,” “ professorial chairs.” It 
began its existence with the theses of an academical dispu- 
tation. The “word,” as its founder was accustomed to say 
(and he never.really departed from his professorial character), 
is, in fact, all—first and last—and its only word. It lec- 
tures, makes its bow, and withdraws; it preaches, and it 
sings, but its “chaunts” are not “hymns;” they are, for 
the most part, nothing more than “ versified theological 
treatises,” or “sermons in rhyme.” It is a Church born of a 
connubial alliance between professors and princes; the features 
of both parents are discernible in its features, though not 
exactly in harmonious combination; and if it is frequently 
reproached with being “sicklied o’er with the pale cast of 
thought ”—and that it is “ temporalized ”—and that it is to 
be regarded as an institution rather than a Church—why, 
that is but merely saying that ‘the child cannot deny its 


*“ Fortbildung der Deutsch-protestantischen Kirchenverfassung,” 
p- 4. 

*“*Zur Kirchlichen Prinzipienfrage der Gegenwart.” Dresden, 
1860, p. 24, et seq. 


MODIFICATIONS OF LUTHERANISM. 289 


own father and mother.” And so it is possible that the 
judgment passed upon it by the richest intellect and most 
profound mind among living Protestant theologians may 
prove to be prophetic—“ The Protestant Church in Ger- 
many,” he says, “has educated a theology” (I should reverse 
this relation), “ which, in the course of time—and that by no 
accidental process, but by the necessity of its very existence 
—will be brought into the most complete hostility with the 
same Church, and enter on a course, of which the sole, 
inevitable result must be its complete dissolution.” ! 

Theology in Germany has indeed again become believing, 
but much is wanting to its being a rightly believing one in 
the sense of the confessional writings. Even those theo- 
logians who boast particularly of their faithful devotion to 
the Lutheran system are not orthodox. “The fact is ob- 
vious to every one,” says Julius Miiller, “ that among all the 
Lutheran theologians who have lately published any com- 
prehensive works in the domain of doctrines of faith, there 
is not a single one who does not consider the Lutheran sym- 
bolic books as requiring modification in some point or other.”? 
And here come into consideration definitions of profound 
importance. “For many years,” said Ehrenberg, at the 
Berlin General Synod, “ he had been looking for a man who 
agreed in all points with the symbolic books of his con- 
fession, but as yet he had never found one.” For a century 
it has been maintained that no theologian, whether from his 
professorial chair or in the pulpit, has been instructing his 
hearers in complete accordance, either as to form and sub- 
stance, with the symbolical books.* | And so imperiously 
does this position, especially in reference to the solemn con- 
fession of faith, bear upon the clergy, that they have found 
out a way by which they might make that which is the fact 
appear to be in accordance with what was required both by 
law and custom. 


1 Rorue’s ‘“ Theologische Ethik,” iii. 1015. 

2 ** Deutsche Zeitschrift,” 1855, p. 107. 

* “ Verhandlungen der evang. Generalsynode zu Berlin,” p. 301: 
* “ Monatschrift fiir die unirte evang. Kirche,” 1847, ii. 84. 


- U 


290 PREDICAMENT OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES. 


So long as German Protestants were in the habit of sub- 
mitting to every ecclesiastical regulation made by their 
monarchical supreme bishops, they quieted their consciences 
with the reflection that the princes had prescribed an oath to 
be taken as to the symbolical books; and then, about the 
close of the last century, jurists gave expression to this 
opinion: that the views taken as to the accepted teaching 
in reference to the symbolical books was only to continue as 
long as the Protestant princes might desire they should be 
maintained.! After a long dispute upon the point, as to 
whether a person had to swear as to the symbolical books, 
either “ because,” or “in so far as,” they contained Scripture 
doctrine, there came the period of Rationalism, in which 
“light work” was made with both oath and creed, and each 
individual found a consolation for himself in the multitude 
around him who entertained the same views, and were placed 
in a like predicament with himself. Ever since 1817, the 
Church authorities proved themselves to be ingenious in 
discovering devices for giving full scope to private judgment, 
and in constructing formulas peculiarly qualified to evade or 
to weaken the rigidity of Confessional declarations. And 
80 persons promised to teach “in the spirit,” or “according 
to the principles,” or “in so far as they were scriptural,” or 
“with a certain regard to the declarations of creed :” and in 
Baden they went so far as in their “ Confession” to maintain 
a free examination of the Scriptures. In Saxony and in 
Baden, however, the old, strict, and unconditional “ Decla- 
ration” was adhered to. 

All propositions and discussions upon the same question 
have, up to this time, been attended with an unsatisfactory 
result. The Churches of the Reformation are in this pre- 
dicament—they cannot well subsist without a solemn Decla- 
ration from their clergy and a settled doctrine; and neither 
can they subsist if they have either the one or the other. 
On one side it is said: “ What can a Church be from which 
every symbol has vanished—what can it be but a Babel?”? 


' TOLLNER’s “ Unterricht von symbolischen Biichern,” p. 30. 
? BROMEL, in the ‘‘ Luth, Zeitschrift,” 1855, p. 275. 


STANDARDS OF CREEDS AND DOCTRINES. 291 


On the other side it is replied, and with perfect justice too: 
“A rigid binding down to symbols, in the present state of 
theology, can only lead to hypocrisy and intolerable violence 
to conscience.”! Thus it is indispensable to make the solemn 
Declaration very vague, in order that a free scope be afforded 
to the clergy as to the symbol. And hence it is only “ac- 
cording to its spirit” that they can be judged; and the signi- 
fication to be given to “the spirit,” and the weight to be 
attached to it, must in the end be left to the clergy them- 
selves, unless there happens to be, as in Saxony, a living, 
active, acknowledged authority to interpret and determine 
what doctrine is to be taught. 

At the foundation of the Evangelical Church Union at 
Wittenberg, in the year 1848, a considerable number of 
distinguished theologians for the first time declared that 
“they stood, as to their creed, upon the ground of the 
Reformed Confession.” This very wide phrase, and at 
bottom binding to nothing those who made it, has since that 
time become a great favourite. Then in the year 1853 it 
was declared, at a meeting in Berlin, “that the Augsburg 
Confession should be regarded as the standard and expression 
of acommon creed and doctrine.” This was the strongest 
and greatest effort at effecting a submission to a certain 
formula which had yet been made. The matter, however, 
though seriously proposed, was not seriously meant, for even 
those who were present assenting to such a proposition were 
thoroughly well aware that amongst themselves, and in all 
Germany, there was not a single theologian who did, in 
point of fact, accept all the articles of the Augsburg Con- 
fession. How little the parties who passed such a resolution 
felt themselves bound in points of faith by it, was soon 
shown by some of those who had taken part in the pro- 
ceedings of the meeting at which it was passed (Schenkel, 
for instance), publishing writings which were in distinct and 
strong contradiction to the Confession of 1530. 

And then, where “the Union” is most firmly established, 
there the authority of the symbolical books is irremediably 
1 Thus speak Rothe, Petersen, and Marheineke. 

U2 


292 DISREGARD OF THE SOLEMN OBLIGATION. 


ruined. At church assemblies and pastoral meetings it has 
‘recently been declared that in Prussia, according to the 
Tenth Article, a person is free to partake of the Lord’s 
Supper in three different senses—in the Lutheran, or the 
Calvinistic, or in accordance with the Union signification ; 
and there are others, also, who maintain there is nothing to 
prevent its being taken and understood in a fourth or a fifth 
sense!! Besides this, there was the fact, which was not, and 
could not, be disputed, viz., that by the Solemn Declaration 
contained in the Ordination Formula, many were, in Prussia 
(as well as in Saxony and Hanover), forced by the law to 
lie—the fact is not to be palliated, but to be lamented—and 
the only way of quieting individuals so situated was with the 
reflection that there was a multitude of others who were tell- 
ing lies, or had lied; and that such lying must be borne with, 
because numbers of their followers would be involved in an 
inextricable embarrassment if a serious construction were put 
upon the Solemn Obligation? 

If the Solemn Obligation were to be accepted as effectively 
binding, and really to be acted upon, then the theological- 
scientific education of the sacerdotal order must be abandoned, 
and persons in authority restrict themselves to the formation 
of establishments for clerical candidates similar to the Dis- 
senters’ academies in England. No theologian can, or will, 
any more seriously bind himself to the whole doctrine of the 
Augsburg Confession and Concordian formulas. The use 
which hitherto has been made of these by-gone rules of creed 
has been mainly polemical. Every one lays down the 
measure of the symbolical books upon that which he desires 
to denounce as heterodox ; but every one, at the same time, 
denies that his own doctrine is, when he departs from such a 
standard, to be decided by it. No one who is clothed with 
an official professional position can venture to stand against 
the torrent of modern exegesis ; and when, for example, Er- 
langen theologians vowed that there was no passage in the 
Bible could be expounded in a sense different from that 


1 “ Deutsche Zeitschrift,” 1854, p. 200. 
2 Brun’s “* Repertorium,” viii. 134. 


DOCTRINE OF “ JUSTIFICATION” ABANDONED. 293 


which was laid down in the symbolical books, then “the 
Scripture Evidence” of Professor von Hofmann was pointed 
at; and he then was, on all sides, accused of being a falsifier 
of the pure Lutheran doctrine of “ Satisfaction,” and “J usti- 
fication”’—and so did the same book serve to show that, at 
this time of day, neither the big nor the little flies will remair 
quiescently pendent in the spider's web of such Solemn 
Obligations. 

All are agreed in this—that the main doctrine of the whole 
of the Confessional writings is that of “ Justification ;” that 
in that dogma Protestant antagonism to the Catholic system 
has its centre and its most pregnant expression. In it “ the 
Reformation recognises its central point, its noblest jewel, 
its essential substance—it is that wherewith Evangelical 
Christianity, founded upon the Gospel, stands and falls.”! 
“No one understands anything of Christianity who has not a 
clear and vivid comprehension of this doctrine. This doctrine 
is, however, in its innermost core, destroyed in the Romish 
Church.” “In accordance therewith,” says Hengstenberg’s 
organ, “in every sermon must our banner be at least once 
unfurled.”? “The doctrine of Justification,” it is said in 
Erlangen, “is the permanent death that gnaws the bones of 
Catholics.” “It is the standard by which the whole of the 
Gospel must be interpreted, and every obscure passage ex- 
plained.”® 

If now one should say to a religious member of the Ger- 
man (and especially on account of this doctrine self-styled 
“ Evangelical”) Church: ‘“ This doctrine is abandoned by the 
scientific theologians of Germany; there is scarcely one 
theologian of any name who will stand up, in serious earnest- 
“ness, and with a view to the inevitable consequence following 
from it, for this dogma of the Reformers and of the symbolical 


1 Kring, in Herzoe’s “ Encyklopiidie,” xii. 582. 

2 'Thus writes F. W. KrumMmacuer in the ‘“ Halleschen Volksblatte,” 
1853, p. 203. 

’ “ Evang. K.-Z.,” vol. xlviii., pp. 415-416. 

* “ Zeitschr. fiir Protest.,” vol. xxvi., p. 119. 

8 Ibid., vol. xxix., p. 134. 


294 LUTHERANISM AND THE NEW THEOLOGY. 


books, and the Concordian formula in particular’—if these 
words were so spoken, they would only provoke an incre- 
dulous and compassionate smile. And yet such is absolutely 
the fact. Already had Tholuck’s “Literary Advertiser” 
(litterarischer Anzeiger) directed general attention to the 
unheard-of levity with which the article on “ Justification” 
was at the present time treated ;' so that what the Reformers 
had (as in the case of Osiander and others) rejected, was 
now declared to be the orthodox doctrine. And then it has 
been shown by Schneckenburger? that the new Lutheran 
theologians have disowned both the doctrine of Luther and 
the symbolical books, and have abandoned the main article 
of “ Justification,” or they have given to it a signification 
the very opposite to that which the first Reformers had de- 
sired or intended. And so it has come to pass, as he 
remarks, that there is but one theological writer, who can 
at the present time be named, who remains true to the old 
Lutheran doctrine, and that is Petri.2 Since Schnecken- 
burger’s death the contradiction between the dogmatic and 
exegetical deductions of theologians, and between a general 
appeal to the “Confession,” the “pure Doctrine,” and the 
article of “the standing and falling Church,” has become 
more sharp, harsh, and dissonant. A few years ago Kahnis, 
too, declared, “he recognised in the direction of the ‘ Union’ 
theology (Nitzsch, Lange, Miiller, &c.) no theologians who 
stood on the basis of ‘ Justification through faith.” Kahnis 
had, he said, to remark with respect to “ Justification” —first, 
that he held with the Lutheran theologians—Martensen, 
Von Hofmann, Sartorius, and others; and, secondly, that he 
had found himself formerly in a position like to theirs.‘ 

1“ Jahrg,” 1848, p. 248. 

2 “* Vergleichende Darstellung des lutherischen und refotmirten Lehr- 
begriffs,” 1855, ii. 38-45. 

* Although ScHNECKENBURGER is right, upon the whole, in his judg- 
ment of the Lutheran doctrine and theologians, still he has fallen into 
error when he ascribes to the Reformers an opposite doctrine, by hunting 
up a few theologians of the same confession, who held opinions opposite 
to the prevailing and adopted doctrine, and then putting those few for- 


ward as the real representatives of the Protestant Church doctrine. 
* “ Die Lehre vom heiligen Geiste.” Halle, 1847, p. 82. 


THEOLOGIANS OF THE NEW SCHOOL. 295 


And here, if the author is not to be reproached with the 
introduction of what may be considered as superfluous, he 
would wish to cite the names of theologians, some living, 
and some dead, who were participators in the latest theolo- 
gical development, and who have abandoned the Protestant 
doctrine of “ Justification,” as it is set forth in the Concor- 
dian formula and the Heidelberg Catechism, and which was 
the prevailing doctrine until 1760. 

These theologians are—Olshausen, Schleiermacher and_ his 
entire school, Heydenreich, Brandt, Nitzsch, Ullmann, 
Neander, Sartorius, Bahr, Schenkel, Martensen, Nagelsbach, 
J. T. Beck, Kollner, Schéberlein, Gerock, Hundeshagen, 
Richard Rothe, J. P. Lange, Ebrard, Von Hofmann, Julius 
Miiller, Lipsius, Beneke, Rennecke, Sack, Dorner, Késtlin, 
Baumgarten, Diisterdiek, Kurtz, Ackermann, Krehl, Schmid, 
Weizsiicker, Kalchreuter, Krahner, Gess, Stier, Griineisen, 
Hagenbach, and De Wette.! This list could, upon more 
diligent examination, be certainly considerably enlarged. It 
indisputably embraces the most gifted individuals, and who, 
as the most profound investigators in Biblical learning, have 
especially imparted a new impulse to theology. And, as- 
suredly, many others might take their place by the side of 
those that have been named, if they had not preferred, upon 
such a subject as this, to content themselves with the hack- 
neyed phrases of “ Justification by Faith,” &c., &c.; and at the 
same time carefully eschewed every close exposition and 
minute anatomization of the dogma. 

It has, indeed, been for some time customary to make an open 
avowal as to an adherence to the material principle of the Re- 
formation, and so to carry on a game with phrases, as if they 

1 Even the theologians, who pass in our days as the purest Lutherans, 
have not eseaped the reproach of having fallen away from the Lutheran 
doctrine of ‘‘ Justification.” This has occurred with Kiierorn, (see 
‘* Zeitsch. fiir luth. Theol.,” 1854, p. 84), and so with Thomasius, Harless, 
and Preger (see Kirerorn’s “ Kirchl. Zeitsch.,” 1858, p. 404). Guerike, 
who has obtained, beyond all others, the praise of holding by the purest 
Lutheran orthodoxy, is shown in Tuotuck’s ‘‘ Theol. Anzeiger,” 1848, 
p. 322, &c., to have had in his description of the ‘ Justification” creed, 


in his ‘ Symbolik” (2d Edit., 1846, p. 365), to have destroyed what was 
the leading idea of Luther and the Reformation. - 


256 A GAME WITH PHRASES. 


were so many counters; whilst, as regards these phrases, no 
fixed ideas are attached to them, or different ideas are 
affixed to the same solemn words of “ Justification by Faith.” 
“Of what avail is it,” says a theologian, “to Evangelical 
Christianity, if it confesses that it is only through faith that 
righteousness and salvation are attainable, when it is at the 
same time not agreed as to wherefore there is faith unto 
salvation.” Upon this point Schenkel is a remarkable 
example; for he, upon every opportunity, repudiates the 
Reformer’s doctrine of Justification as untenable; and then 
again can speak exactly like one of the mob of preachers 
upon the grand material principle of Protestantism! Thus, 
too, Bunsen intimates that Justification alone through Faith 
has been translated out of the Semitic tongue into the 
Japhetic, and that it is “the principle of moral self- 
responsibility.”2 And very recently, Rossman, in_ his 
“* Remarks upon the age of the Reformation,” (‘ Betrachtung- 
en iiber das Zeitalter der Reformation,”) made the discovery 
that every modern state is based upon the evangelical 
principle of Justification through Faith! 

It is indisputably one of the most suggestive and, at the 
same time, widely comprehensive events in the later history 
of religion, that the doctrine which was peculiarly the foun- 
dation of the whole edifice of Protestant teaching should be 
scientifically prostrated completely to the earth. It is, in 
sooth, still a standing reproach for one theologian to make to 
another that it is sought to lead him into error, and to turn 
him away from the “ Gospel,” when the attempt is made to 
divert him from the pure doctrine of Justification by Faith. 
But then, when a person is compelled to propound a scientific 
exposition of the dogma, and when general phrases can no 
longer be employed, then there regularly is brought into 
view a doctrine which Reformers and the genuine followers 
of Luther denounce as “ Papistical” or ‘ Arminian.” 

1 Lowe in the “ Gottinger Monatschrift fiir Theol. und Kirche,” 1851, 
p- 336. Also Haske, ‘‘ Die Entwicklung des Protestantismus,” 1855, p. 


19, speaks openly upon the contradiction between the now widely ex- 
tended notion of Justification through Faith and the orthodox doctrine. 


2 ** Hippolytus,” i. 339. 


MEANS USED TO UPHOLD THE LUTHERAN DOGMA. 297 


Exegetic theology in Germany has become so powerful, 
and distinguished expounders of the Bible have still so 
high a scientific reputation to maintain, that the repulsion 
of this theology to the expositions of the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries, is an impossibility. Not a few of the 
modern exegetists have, with the very best intentions, 
attempted to connect together the doctrines of the Reformers 
and the Bible. With such intentions they went to work; 
but their labour came to—naught! The staff is broken 
upon which they leant who sought to render the Confessional 
writings again available; and the toil has been vain of those 
who have sought to restore the old Protestant creed, and to 
re-animate the faith at one period placed in the symbolical 
books. Even the distinctive appellation of “ Evangelical,” 
has no longer its right signification; for what was meant 
at the time of the Reformation by that word was—the 
“Tmputation” doctrine, with all its consequences. 

And yet all things were attempted, and all, too, ventured, 
for the purpose of upholding this “ article of a standing and 
falling Church!” It was for the sake of this that the 
Epistle of St. James was pronounced to be “an epistle of 
straw ;” and it was for the sake of this that in the Augsburg 
Confession, laid before the Emperor and the Empire, the 
barefaced falsehood was promulgated, that this doctrine had 
previously been maintained by St. Augustine; and when 
Melancthon, out of sheer down-right shame, had omitted it 
from an edition of the Confession, still it was—despite of 
most earnest protests on the part of a few theologians—again 
(in 1576) foisted into the text of the Confession! For the 
sake also of this doctrine, had Luther deliberately and 
purposely given a mistranslation of several passages in the 
Bible, and especially of the Epistles of St. Paul; it was, 
too, to uphold this, his favourite dogma, that the great Re- 
former interpolated fanciful expressions of his own, that were 
foreign to, and altogether undiscoverable in, the original text. 

The Reformers went further. For the purpose of being 
able to preserve and maintain an article of faith which was 
utterly unknown to all Christian antiquity, a breach was 


298 _ NOVELTY OF THE DOCTRINE. 


made with all ecclesiastical tradition, and the authority 
of the dogmatic testimony of the Church in every age 
rejected. “This,” says Julius Miiller, “must be openly 
admitted, by every unprejudiced historical investigation, that 
not merely the ecclesiastical theology of the middle ages, 
but even the Patristic theology of the fourth, fifth, and sixth 
centuries, are, upon every point that is a matter of dispute 
between Catholicism and Protestantism, more on the side of 
the former than of the latter.” 

If Miiller intended to intimate that this important fact 
lay concealed from the men of the Reformation, viz., that 
their doctrine was at variance with that which was main- 
tained in the first centuries of Christianity, he is partly right, 
that is, he is so far right in this, that the fact was carefully 
concealed from the people—that the laity did not know any- 
thing about it; but it was far otherwise in the narrow circle 
of the Reformers, because there the circumstance was openly 
adverted to. Melancthon declared in his letter to Brenz that 
what he had maintained for the German Protestants in the 
Augsburg Confession was an untruth. Luther had fre- 
quently and frankly avowed that his doctrine was quite dif- 
ferent from any to be found in the most ancient Churches ; 
and hence it was that he contemned the Fathers, as witnesses 
to what was the Ancient Church doctrine. His labours to 
lower, so far as he possibly could, in public estimation, the 
authority of the Ancient Councils, were plainly in corre- 
spondence with the consciousness of their being adverse to 
his doctrine. The same thing has been acknowledged by 
Calvin, viz.—that the new doctrine of “Justification” was 
neither to be found in tradition nor amongst the Fathers. 
And when the United Theologians and preachers of Rostock, 
in a written appeal to the preachers of the cities of Liibeck, 
Hamburg, and Liineburg, declare—“ That as to the articles 
of ‘ Free Will, ‘ Grace, and ‘ Justification,’ the teaching of or- 
thodox antiquity is in complete concordance with that men- 
tioned by Catholic theologians’”*—when such a circumstance, 

1 “Peutsche Zeitschrift,” July, p. 214. 


2?See Bertrram’s “Evangel. Liineburg,” p. 271. They remark that 
there are only a few passages in the later writings of Augustine and 


STAHL’S VIEW. 299 


we say, as this occurs, then it is plain that those who really 
are theologians indulge in no illusions upon these points. 
But then—when persons are speaking before the world— 
another, and quite a different, form of language is used. 

A something, however, must be said upon this point, and 
what it is may be surmised from the view which Stahl takes 
of it, viz.—“Imputed righteousness is the mystery which 
contains the innermost essence of the Christian religion, and 
the fulness of Divine Light; and it is only through the Re- 
formation that this Divine Light was shed upon the spirit of 
mankind.” And this doctrine it is which peculiarly qualifies 


Prosper (upon the irresistible operation of Grace). They are an excep- 
tion to the Catholic and Ancient Church doctrine. 

1 HenGsTeENBERG’S “ K,-Z.,” 1853, pp. 824-325. The theologians of 
modern times are in the habit of avoiding the use of the expression ‘‘ im- 
puted righteousness” as a distinction from true, interiorly affected 
‘‘righteousness.”” The discourse is ever only of the righteousness by 
faith, justification through faith. This designation, however, in the 
mouth of a Protestant is so much the more inapplicable and deceptive, as 
it is the Catholic Church that has been peculiarly competent to show 
how faith, operating through love, has been found to be right in the sight 
of God; whilst, on the other hand, according to the old Protestant 
system, it is not faith, but the imputation of the sufferings of Christ, 
which makes man appear justified before God, or that the process of 
justification is therewith fulfilled, that God attributes to man the suffer- 
ings and the fulfilment of the law by Christ, as if man himself had 
yielded the same obedience, and that man, through faith, knows and be- 
comes assured of this imputation. By such a mode of comprehending the 
subject, man is justified in a very vague manner—merely through the 
means of a very forced figure of speech ; so that one can only be said to 
be justified through faith, as it might be affirmed “that he had eaten a 
full meal because he had handled a fork.” But what service the imputa- 
tion doctrine can confer upon individuals or the community may be in- 
ferred from the following words of VirMar :—‘‘ Even in Luther, despite 
of all the boundless graces bestowed upon him, there is sin—and sin never 
to be justified. But we see in him not sin, but to the sinner imputed 
righteousness through faith in the one Redeemer, Jesus Christ; and all 
have heard what He has said, that through this imputed righteousness is 
alone to be judged what may, in man’s whole existence, happen, or 
apparently occur to him. Take away this imputed righteousness, let us 
not see it, and then nought remains of him but the weakest sinner, and 
in all his thoughts the wildest nonsense that the dreariest of madcaps 
ever devised.”—*‘ Zeitschr. fiir luth. Theol.,” 1848, p. 284. 


300 PROTESTANTISM IN A DILEMMA. 


the Lutheran Church to hold a high position in the Catho- 
licity of its doctrine—of that Catholicity which, as he says, 
ever consists in God-appointed doctrine and ordinance, and 
in being the bond of Christianity for all places and through 
all times, and in opposition to human invented error, which 
never has been universally accepted.' 

In the author’s judgment the importance of the subject 
here mentioned can scarcely be too highly appreciated. Here 
upon the one side stand Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and 
their disciples, the Protestant Confessional writings, and the 
combined Lutheran and Calvinistic theology of the sixteenth 
and seventeenth centuries. They all have professed to find 
that doctrine which we for brevity sake name “the doctrine 
of Imputation,” laid down distinctly in the Bible. On the 
other side is the newer and the latest theology, the whole 
modern scientific exegesis, and it rejects the doctrine, it re- 
jects the Reformation exposition of fragmentary Bible pas- 
sages as false and untenable. But it.is a supreme evangeli- 
cal principle, that the Scripture is perfectly clear and suffi- 
cient on all fundamental points. How, then, is this funda- 
mental difference to be cleared up? And thereby is con- 
cerned a doctrine which, as everyone admits, has an incalcu- 
lable influence upon Christian consciousness and ecclesiastical 
life—a doctrine (by the admission or confession of many 
Protestant theologians), that had formerly been a source of 
destruction to countless beings, and has caused a desola- 
tion of the Churches, of which persons formerly had no fore- 
thought. The whole edifice of the Protestant Church and 
theology reposes, therefore, on two principles—one material, 
the other formal: the doctrine of Imputation, and the suffi- 
ciency of the Bible. But the material principle is given up 
by exegesis and dogmatic theology; and as to the formal 
principle, for the sufficiency of the Bible, or even for the 
inspiration of the writings of the disciples of the Apostles, 
not the shadow of a scriptural argument can be adduced. 
The time will, it must, come when the whole vast importance 
of this matter will excite universal attention. To such 

1 Die lutherische Kirche,” 1859, p. 452. 


IMPOTENCY OF PREACHING. 301 


serious thought must the experience which has now been 
gone through force the attention of those who, in driving 
Rationalism out of the pulpit, and re-establishing a Protest- 
ant believing body of preachers, have found the experiment 
not correspond with their expectations. “ For a long time,” 
says Baumgarten,! “persons might entertain the notion that 
it was Rationalism made our churches empty, and our 
preaching unattended to. But now since Christ crucified is 
again preached, and yet no serious effect, upon the whole, is 
to be observed, it is necessary to abandon this mistake, and 
not to conceal from ourselves that preaching is unable to 
revive religious life.’ ‘The impotency of the present 
preaching,” he continues, “is still more appalling, when it is 
generally known and confessed that those who could testify 
to the extreme depth of the degradation to which it has 
descended, refrain from telling the entire of its evil conse- 
quences.” 

Delitzsch has confirmed the testimony given by Baumgarten. 
“Tt is,” he says, “indeed true that the nullity of results 
from preaching is one of the saddest circumstances of the 
day.”? And there have of late been many Councils held as 
to the causes of this deplorable fact. The Berlin meeting of 
the Evangelical Alliance occupied itself a good deal with this 
theme. ‘“ Wherefore,” it was asked, “has it come to pass 
that, despite of a restoration of theology to the Ecclesiastical 
Confessions, there should be exhibited so little of spiritual life 
amongst the congregations ?” Professor Krafft, who delivered 
‘ alecture on the subject, has recognised some of the causes of 
the evil. He hassaid, and that, too, plainly enough, that the 
doctrine of the symbolical books had, at a former period, 
effected “the downfall of all spiritual life ; and persons, 
therefore, must not be surprised, if its renewal at the present 
moment should bear similar fruit”? The preacher Beyschlag, 
of Carlsruhe, who, immediately after Krafft, addressed the 
meeting, has spoken still more clearly on the same theme, 

1 “ Nachtgesichte des Sacharias,” 1855, ii. 121, et seq. 


2 Erlang. Zeitschr. fiir Protestantismus,” 1858, p. 305. 
3 ** Verhandlungen,” p. 186. 


302 CONDITION OF PROTESTANT CONGREGATIONS. 


which he referred to as “the most peculiarly pressing and 
urgent ecclesiastical question of the time.”! The whole 
calamity of the Protestant Church up to this very day was 
“itsone-sided creed—confession”—the “dead orthodoxy,” with 
its doctrine of “ Sanctification.”? “Out of it Rationalism had 
naturally sprung; and the revival of this orthodoxy has become 
a chronic Church epidemic, seizing upon and carrying off great 
numbers of the clergy.” 

Naturally, these declarations, as to the phenomenon, were 
repudiated by many; but, then, as to the fact itself, all 
were unanimous. And even at meetings of preachers (for 
instance, the Berliners, in 1858, and the Saxons, at Gnadau, 
in 1859), held consultations about it. Lately, too, the ten- 
dency towards which the faithful were inclining was com- 
plained of even in a Palatinate ecclesiastical journal. “¢ If,” 
as it said, “one looks closely into the condition of individual 
congregations, to whom, for long years, the Gospel has been 
preached in its simplicity and purity, it will be found that the 
Word seems to have fallen on land covered with thorns, or 
upon a stony soil, or upon the hard-beaten highway ;” and in 
such a complaint is involved the strongest demand for 
subjecting the so-called “ Evangelical Gospel” itself to a 
revision. 

In logical connection with the Imputation doctrine stands 
the Reformation apprehension of “ the four last things.” The 
old Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrine was, that every man, 
upon his death, instantly either attained to the happiness of 
Heaven, or was thrust down into Hell. An indispensable 
absolution and purification from sin was regarded as a species 
of physical process, and lay in death and the corruption of the 
body—so that, as a modern writer has remarked, “all that 
was wanting to Death was the name of a Sacrament, and to 
join it on to, and make it the completion of, the other two.’ 

1 Verhandlungen,” p. 194. * 

* In the same manner in which the “ justitia forensis” was branded by 
him, was the old essentially Protestant doctrine referred to. See p. 195. 

? ‘ Evangelischer Reichsbote,” 1859, ‘‘ Neujahrswort.” 

‘ Fries, in the “ Jahrbiichern fiir deutsche Theol.,” i. 304. I do not 
understand how Kiierors (‘“ Liturg. Abhandlungen,” i. 169) can make 


DEFECT OF THE OLD SYSTEM RECOGNIZED. 303 


At the time of the Reformation, and even up to the end of 
the last century, the people were very ready to accept this 
notion, which the lightness of faith, and Declaration Acts, 
made appear to them as alike suitable and consolatory. 
Truly, indeed, as Professor Neumann has complained, “has 
the doing away of every species of communion between the 
living and the dead mainly led the mass of Protestants to 
the very brink of doubt in everlasting life.”! From it has 
arisen that general beatification, and that pestilent mischief 
of funeral sermons, which have, in no slight degree, contri- 
buted to a moral and religious torpor, and to the wide-spread 
frivolous delusion, as to man’s ascension into Heaven being 
alike instantaneous and easy of accomplishment.”? 
Theologians have now recognised the sad defect of the old 
system; and even zealous Lutherans cannot venture to fall 
back upon this point to the views promulgated by the early 
Reformers. Hence, for some time back, the necessity has 
been perceived for adopting a half-way manner of explaining 
it— as has been done, for example, by Kern, Fries, Girgensohn, 
and others. And then, as to a question connected therewith 
—that is, “If prayer for the dead was permissible or advis- 
able ?””—that is put to rest as an undecided point. Every: 
preacher has, concerning it, either his own settled opinion, or 
—none! That which, in some places, it is recommended to 
the laymen to do, is, in other places, exposed to a severe 
censure. The old Lutheran theologians consistently declared 
that prayers for the departed were altogether useless.* The 
Prussian Agenda has adopted the practice, whilst, at the 
same time, in accordance with the example given by the 
Anglican Church Liturgy, it assures the hearers of the sal- 
vation of the deceased, and that he is indubitably in the full 
possession of beatitude; and hence its prayers may be 


Rationalism responsible for what had previously been the doctrine of the 
Reformers. : 

1“ Zeitschrift fiir luth. Theologie,” 1852, 282. 

? See upon this point the recollections of MAYWAHLEN in the Preface 
to his book, ‘t Der Tod.” Berlin, 1854. 

* Kurerorn’s ‘ Liturg. Abhandlungen,” i. 311. 


304 FORMS OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP. 


regarded as an insignificant formula. Besides this, there are 
to be found amongst clergymen, as in Wiirtemberg, no few 
adherents to the doctrine of a restoration of all things—for 
example, the prelate Kapff—and these persons, in their 
innocence! do not perceive that they thus shatter to pieces 
the old Protestant system, and do not leave one stone of it 
resting upon another ! 


In Divine Service, the doctrine of a Church gives a form 
to its religious aspect. If there is in a Church a sound 
and harmonious relation between doctrine and life, between 
the clergy and the laity, it manifests itself in the appro- 
priateness of the Divine Service, and the participation of the 
people. 

There are not more, it may be said, than three possible 
modes of a Christian form of worship. Either the sermon 
constitutes the main portion and centre of the worship, so 
that the remainder, hymn and prayer, are merely subservient 
assistants. Or, the main act of worship is a Liturgy, in 
which there is a reading aloud of passages of Scripture and 
forms of prayer. Or, in the third, the worship is an actual 
celebration of the whole work of Redemption—a Communion, 
in which all who are present participate in the complete act 
of the Lord’s Supper, and in which each of the whole com- 
munity offers himself up, with Christ, a victim to the Father 
—as the most perfect form of adoration to the Almighty 
God. The first form is indisputably the most suitable to the 
old and true Protestantism; the second is that which has 
been chosen by the English Established Church, and though 
pleasing to the higher classes, is not so universally acceptable 
to the populace; the third is the form of worship of the 
ancient Church, and of the ecclesiastical communities which 
have maintained their continuity, either without interruption 
or essential change—such as the Catholic, the Greek, the 
Russian, and the Monophysite Churches-in Asia and Africa. 
In Protestant Germany, the sermon has always had the 
absolute masterdom. The Divine Service is a preachment 
service, and its Church peculiarly and especially a lecture- 


PROTESTANT CONGREGATIONAL PASSIVITY, 305 


room, or a school. It became an accepted maxim with its 
theologians, that without a sermon there could be no real 
Divine Service. In the same measured progress in which 
this opinion advanced, it was found that, without any pre- 
concert, and without any visible influence of one national 
Church upon another, the few liturgical pieces which had 
been at the first used in Divine Service, began to disappear 
from amongst the congregations in all parts of Germany.' 
And this impoverishment ofthe Divine Service was thus 
shewn to be a perfectly natural circumstance, for it was one 
in complete correspondence with the Protestant mode of 
thought and feeling. 

The consequence of this practice was—first, that the con- 
gregations were, for their edification, in subjectivity to the 
clergy; secondly, that the complete passivity of the people 
in the Divine Service became the characteristic mark of 
Protestant worship. Theologians themselves have admitted 
“that at no period has there been found the same rank 
deficiency of congregational energy amongst Catholics as in 
the midst of Protestants.”2 “The Evangelical Church,” 
says another, “ repudiates every semblance of the office and 
order of priesthood, and yet transfers the whole of the 
Divine Service into the hands of a preacher, and affords to 
him a proportionately higher power, and a far more exclusive 
representation of the whole congregation, than the Romish 
Church has ever conceded to one of its priests.”? Hence 
the attendance on Divine Service is altogether dependent 
upon the popularity of the preacher; and hence persons are 
accustomed to say, “Ino longer go to church to him.” A 
third points out the contradiction that arises between the 
numerous discourses of a priesthood and the immobility of 


1 GRUNEISEN, ‘Die Evang. Gottesdienstordnung.” Stuttgart, 1856, 
p- 41. He shows how naturally it came to pass in Wiirtemberg since 
the sixteenth century, until at length its Divine service had not its equal 
for ‘* poverty and partiality.” 

* Baur, “ Begriindung einer Gottesdienstordnung.” Karlsruhe, 1856, 
p. 154. 

* Rees von EsenBeck, “ Der christl. Gottesdienst,” 1854, p. 161. 


x 


306 Oe, UNDUE IMPORTANCE OF PREACHING. 


the congregations, who never say even an “Amen” to the 
prayers offered up for them, but merely let themselves be 
talked at; and it is affirmed-that the much lauded and often 
praised simplicity of the Protestant Divine Service should 
be most properly described as “ poverty-stricken” and 
“ monotonous,” and not only imparting an impression of 
_ “ dryness,” but also as being characterized with “ weakness, 
weariness, and somnolency.”! 

And it has come to this, that, by the admission of the 
clergy themselves, they have no longer congregations, but 
merely a public audience, and that audience chooses the 
preacher it prefers—fancying him for his voice, manners, 
and attitudes—running after him who best suits its own 
notions, and then forsaking him if he has exhausted his gifts as 
_ an orator, or has ceased to be the fashionable. And there 
is also the declaration of a very calamitous fact—of visits to the 
Church being barren of fruit, of being negligently paid, and 
so the churches left empty. ‘The community,” says a 
Prussian clergyman, “are sickened with sermons; and the 
multitude has become tired, at last, of having always to go to 
school !”2 | 

In such circumstances, it is a remarkable symptom of the 
present state of affairs—viz. the experiment at an intrusion 
upon the territory of the Divine Service, such as had never 
before been attempted. For three hundred years there 
never had been so much written upon the same topic as 
within the last ten or twenty years.? The first species of 
aid that presented itself, naturally, was to increase the 
number of hymns and prayers, such as has happened in 
Prussia since the introduction of the liturgical element. 

But then this fact has come out on all sides—namely, that 
the churches are really only visited by the public for the 
sake of the sermon. The singing and the Divine service are 
neglected, and it is only a short time previous to the delivery 


1 ScHOBERLEIN, ‘‘ Ueber den liturgischen Ausbau,” 1859, p. 83. 
2 Cunz, ‘‘ Das geistliche Amt und der Pastorenstand,” p. 60. 
3 BanR, p. 1. 


LACK OF SOLEMN FESTIVALS. 307 


of the sermon that the churches begin to fill. Such is cer- 
tainly the case in all Saxony.! And then wherever the 
“ Agenda” is introduced, there is the same account to be 
given of the behaviour of the people. ‘In North and Middle 
Germany,” says Zittel, “Ihave often had the opportunity 
of remarking how three fourths of the church visitors only 
began to enter the church when the liturgy was over, and 
that immediately after the sermon they again left it.2 Even 
the General Superintendent Hofmann has remarked that 
in most cases congregations exhibit not the slightest par- 
ticipation in the Service during the Liturgy, or they are 
merely represented in the children’s choir.® 

There is an awful lack of the solemn festivals of the 
Catholic Church, in which each great festival is symbolically 
individualised, and adapts itself in a life-like manner to the 
popular sentiment and feeling. The Protestant Church, on 
the other hand, “which has an absolute horror of all sym- 
bolical significations in its Divine service,” and therefore, as 
it is said by a clergyman of that church, “there is in our 
festivals something so monotonous, and in all their physiog- 
nomies something so similar, that they can neither be dis- 
tinguished from one another, nor from the usual Sunday 
services.”* And then, if an alteration be attempted, and a 
symbolical element introduced, the same fate overtakes it as 
befell the attempt to make the people kneel down during 
Divine service—that is, it is almost everywhere put an end 
to.2 The preachers and the Consistories were perfectly 
willing again to introduce the practice; but the population 
refused with the declaration—“ Kneeling is a Catholic prac- 
tice.” It was further desired that Protestant churches should 
be not merely stations for preaching, but also houses of 
prayer ;° for they were in this respect in such a scandalous 

1 HENGSTENBERG’S “ K.-Z.,” 1858, p. 1114. 

? HuNDESHAGEN, ‘‘ Der Badische Agendenstreit.” Frankfort, 1859, 


p. 13. * Messner’s ‘ Kirch.-Ztg.,” 1860, p. 105. 
‘ ZitTTEL, ‘‘ Zustinde,” &c., p. 236. 


5 SCHOBERLEIN, “‘ Ueber den liturg. Ausbau.” Gotha, 1859, pp. 329, 
330. 


6 * Erlang. Zeitsch.,” vol. xxv., p. 185. 
x 2 


308 CATHOLICISING THE PROTESTANT SERVICE, 


condition, that “one could not bring a heathen inside of 
them without blushing for shame.”! They seemed but to 
be intended for a brief assembling together. The only use 
to which they were applied was for a meeting of an hour or 
two’s duration every eight days. The people did nothing for 
the adornment of their churches; they were nothing more, 
in public estimation, than “the stone houses in which the 
preacher made a speech on Sundays,” and they were regarded 
as quite good enough for that purpose. But here is a point 
on which advice is of no use. If there were another service 
in the course of the week, it would be only another sermon 
over again, and the people (it was generally acknowledged) 
had already had quite enough of preaching. And then— 
there is the fact—that it is only within the last ten or twenty 
years that there ever had been in many places Divine service 
in the middle of the week. 

But then there was another mode of proceeding—one, 
however, that has not yet been introduced—and that will 
not be attempted, because of the universal opposition it would 
provoke, but that still in theory is recommendable—and that 
is, in accordance with the custom in the old church, to make 
the Holy Communion the main part and centre of the Divine 
service, and therewith to recognise and exalt the character 
of the Victim in this Holy Action. Such a course is now 
recommended by the most illustrious of the theologians—by 
Kliefoth, Hengstenberg, Hofling, Sartorius, Harnack, Léhe, 
Kahnis, Bachmann, &c. And here is to be noted an essential 
difference between Lutheranism and Calvinism—that the 
Lutherans in their churches have an altar, and thereby at 
least intimate the desire for a Sacrifice and its admissibility ; 
whilst the Calvinists have only a common table for their 
celebration of the Lord’s Supper.?_ This Sacrifice theory is, 
however, an open repudiation of real Protestantism, for its 
originators and promoters, when they proceed seriously with 
the subject, are compelled to abandon the name of “ T.u- 
therans.” And sharp reproaches have not failed to be made 


1 HENGSTENBERG’S “ K.-Z.,” 1857, p. 529, 
? GoBEL’s “ Reform. K.-Z.,” 1855, p. 167, 


PROTESTANT DIFFICULTIES. 309 


against such theologians for their “ Mass-Sacrifice theory,” 
and with respect to their “ catholicising.”! 

There is a very pressing necessity felt as to the restoration 
of the fitting. celebration of Sunday devotion, and impressing 
upon the people an attendance upon Divine service as a 
sacred duty. But here again every struggle is impeded by 
Protestant principles, which rise up in the way as insur- 
mountable obstacles. 

Kraussold,? Liebetrut, and others, have shown that the 
principles of the Reformation have rendered it impossible to 
found upon them an obligation to the solemn observance of 
the Sabbath. ‘The Sabbath has fallen with the Mosaic law ; 
the Sunday is not to be found commanded as a Holy 
Day in the New Testament; the Church has no higher 
authority to introduce such a Holy Day: to its commands, 
therefore, there is as little obedience due (through Evan- 
gelical freedom) as to its Ordinances respecting Fasting, 
Confession, and so forth. How, then, is it possible to make. 
a Protestant population comprehend that they are bound 
to the observance of the Sunday as a Holy Day? The 
numberless councils for the last thirty years that have been 
held upon this question have, as a matter of course, only 
served to establish the complete impossibility of solving it. 
Already has a demand been made to change the Lutheran 
translation of the Bible; but when the people seek there for 
a passage upon the Sunday, and upon the obligation to 
observe it holy, and can find no such thing, then the preacher 
by his interposition will not be able to afford much help in 
getting out of the difficulty.® 

A similar difficulty manifests itself in the case of the Baptists, 
who form a considerable and constantly increasing fraction of 
Protestant Christianity. It is now admitted on all sides 
that neither a command of Christ nor of the Apostles can be 
cited in support of Infant Baptism. At the Church 
Assembly at Frankfort, in the year 1854, space was afforded 

' See *¢ Studien und Kritiken,” 1836, p. 472. 


2“ Drei Kapitel itiber die Sonntagsfeier.” Erlangen, 1850. 
* “ Deutsche Zeitschrift,” 1855, p. 273. 


310 -- HELPLESSNESS OF THE CLERGY. 


for the reception of the Baptists present, by the declaration 
of the President, that “Infant Baptism was one of those 
problems that had not yet been fully solved.” And there 
have been a few theologians, such as Ebrard, who would 
much rather yield the point and abandon Infant Baptism, so 
that the principle of the literal interpretation of the Bible 
may be preserved, and persons not be compelled to recognise 
the authority of the Church. For years persons have, in 
Conferences and Church Assemblies, been labouring at the 
double question of Infant Baptism and Baptism by effusion 
or aspersion, without being able to make one step in 
advance. 

But this is not all: Even as regards Marriage and the 
Nuptial Benediction there are now assertions set up, from 
which, in point of fact, all that can be said dr inferred is, 
that those who make them would, if they could, support 
them by Scriptural quotations. Thus, a short time ago, the 
_ Lutheran Pastoral Conference at Ravensberg, amongst 
others, adopted a resolution to the effect, “ That the Church 
cannot acknowledge any real marriage without Ecclesiastical 
Benediction.” At the same time, it was declared to be the 
determination of the Assembly to enter a Protest against all 
civil marriages within the Church, and to excommunicate 
everyone who entered into a civil marriage. It may easily 
be guessed what answer these pastors would be able to give 
if a layman had called upon them for Scriptural proofs in 
sustainment of such propositions. 


The utter helplessness of the clergy in their relations with 
their congregations in general, as well as individual members 
—the fact that at present the pulpit is the only place from 
which, and the sole means through which, the preacher can 
exercise any effective influence—all these things have 
attracted the attention of many to the two most deeply felt 
defects of ecclesiastical life: and these are a want in the care 
of souls and of Church discipline. Upon the possibility and 
the urgency of attempting a restoration of both, there has 

1“ Darmstiidt K.-Ztg.,” 1859, No. xxxiv. 


PRIVATE CONFESSION. 311 


been much both thought and written. Almost every 
assembly of preachers is occupied especially with the ques- 
tion of Church discipline, of which the last remnants have 
long since disappeared. And then it has been thoroughly 
recognised that “a cure of souls” can be only attainable 
when the souls show themselves as they really are to their 
clergyman—make themselves known to him—seek for and 
desire his advice and special guidance; and the only means 
by which such objects are attainable is through confession. 
“The Confessional,” says Kliefoth, “is the place ordained 
for the cure of souls.” The practice of “Confession” has, 
however, disappeared from all parts of Germany. The 
preacher now announces a general absolution from the pulpit, 
without even the form of a confession of sins being gone 
through or acknowledged and admitted by an affirmation 
on the part of the congregation. 

Every attempt to facilitate a revival of the practice of 
Confession instantly encounters a determined opposition on 
the part of the people.? “Private Confession,” it is said, in 
the Protestation of the Augsburg Protestants against the 
Orders of the Upper Consistory, in the year 1856, “is, con- 
sidering the position of Evangelical clergymen, and their con- 
nection with family life, an institution that would be abso- 
lutely intolerable.” “The people,” say the Erlangen Theolo- 


1 “ Liturgische Abhandlungen,” ii. 496. 

? The following report from Riga shows what are the means employed 
to render it impossible for preachers to have a real ‘‘ cure of souls” :— 
‘ The office of the clergyman as a spiritual director—the cure of souls— 
is here, as with us elsewhere, fallen into desuetude. People have long 
since desisted from making the clergyman the confidential depository of 
their spiritual condition. The moment it is suggested, then there is a 
notion of ‘auricular confession,’ ‘ priestcraft,’ ‘tyrannizing over con- 
sciences,’ &c., &c., &e. Many would, upon being noticed in making a 
nearer approach to the clergy, be warned, as if they were upon the point 
of abandoning the evangelical faith and becoming Catholics.”—‘‘ Kirch- 
liche Vierteljahrsschrift,” Berlin, 1845, p. 166. Cunz and others had 
remarked that when a person in Protestant districts happened to ask a 
question as to “‘ who was the spiritual director of the place?” he re- 
ceived as an answer, ‘‘ There are no Catholics here, and the only clergy- 
man here is—a preacher.” 


312 DOCTRINE OF A UNIVERSAL PRIESTHOOD. 


‘ gians, “never have had confidence in their clergymen as 
Father-Confessors.”! It is, then, no longer possible to re- 
establish “Confession” in any form whatever—not even in 
the old Lutheran fashion, whereby all that was done was to 
recite to the preacher “a General.Confession of Sins,” which 
was either got off by heart, or read out from a piece of paper 
—even that, the easiest, most commodious, and most imperfect 
form of Confession—one, too, of which conscientious clergy- 
men in the seventeenth century. had such a horror, that they 
declared “the Lutheran mode of making confessions was the 
plague of their Church ”—well! even that can be never 
more introduced and established. Every attempt must be 
wrecked upon the rock of that prime and darling doctrine of 
“a universal priesthood,” by means of which everyone is 
made his own priest and teacher, and stands in need of no 
intermediary, no witness, and no office, but can, with a clear, 
unswerving conscience, absolve himself of his own sins! 
So has it at all times been held in every Calvinistic Reformed 
Church, and consequently there is nothing less thought of in 
“the Union” than the revival of Confession. “Of what 
avail to me is mine own priesthood,” says a Protestant lay- 
man, “if I must first be assured by a pastor, who knows 
nothing of the state of my soul, that my sins have been for- 
given me?” The power of dispensing with every species of 
priestly intercession—“ the directness of a communication 
with Christ ””—is, as it has been in various modes already 
expressed, that which, connected with the Imputation doc- 
trine, makes (with many) the Protestant religion far prefer- 
able to the Catholic.? 

For the purpose of winning an assent to the possibility of 
establishing a sacerdotal, sin-absolving office—and to induce 
persons again to recognise-—(that which is alike strange and 
foreign to the notions both of preachers and laymen in the 
world of Protestantism)—an individual really having a cure 
of souls—there has been devised a portrait of a universal 
priesthood, which very closely resembles the Catholic view, 


1“ Zeitschr. fiir Protest.,” vol. xxi., p. 52. 
? See, for example, the ‘‘ Deutsche Zeitschrift,” 1857, p. 66. 





MEANS OF ENFORCING CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 313 


and is the very opposite of that which Luther drew at the 
commencement of his career. This has been done by 
Hengstenberg,' amongst others. But all such theories have 
not the slightest influence in practical life. 

And so, too, every hope and expectation must be aban- 
doned, of ever seeing “ Church discipline” in any form what- 
soever introduced. As to “Confession,” and “ discipline” 
exercised through the practice of Confession, there cannot be 
as much as one word spoken. And so there finally remain 
—as means of enforcing discipline—“ an exclusion from the 
Communion table, and the refusal of Christian burial.” As 
to the first means, it is inapplicable, because of the indiffer- 
ence there is felt with respect to the Sacrament of the 
Altar; and the general negligence in attending it is one of the 
crying evils of the Church at the present moment. From 
various quarters it is reported that the number of those par- 
taking of the Lord’s Supper is constantly declining more 
and more,’ and that even the most of those well disposed 
towards the Church content themselves with Communion 
once in a year.’ “ Hundreds of thousands of Evangelical 
Christians,” says Friihbuss,‘ “are self-excommunicated, and 
will have absolutely nothing to say or do with the Sacrament 
of the Altar.” There are numberless others who, from a 
scruple of conscience, or from the Unionist mode of adminis- 
tering the Sacrament, will not participate in it. And so, it 
may be seen that there are, in the Church, vast numbers 
against whom “an exclusion from the Sacrament” could not 
be employed for the purpose of enforcing Church discipline. 
The matter, however, is still worse as regards “ Christian 
burial.” In the North, the custom is entirely abandoned 
of the clergymen accompanying the body of the deceased to 
the grave.° In Hamburg, for instance, interments take 

1 See his expressions in his ‘“‘ Kirchen-Zeitung,” 1852, p. 19, and on 
the ‘‘ Catechismus Romanus,” pp. 2, 7, 22. 

? BAUMGARTEN, ‘‘ Der Kirkliche Nothstand in Mecklenburg,” 1861, 

, Al. 
* HENGSTENBERG’S ‘“ K.-Ztg.,” 1858, p. 1115. 


* “ Ueber Wiederbelebung der Kirchenzucht.” Breslau, 1859, p. 50. 
s “ Berlin Kirchenzeitung,” 1844, No. Lxiii. : 


314 EXCESS OF PREACHING. 


place without any participation on the part of the ecclesias- 
tical authorities.!. “In town and country,” says Friihbuss, 
“it is the rule not to have a religious burial, when one 
wishes to avoid payment of fees. The poor people, looking 
to a saving of expenses, pray for permission to have “a quiet 
funeral.” From this practice has arisen a general notion that 
a quiet funeral—“a still burial,” that is, one divested of 
ecclesiastical ceremonies—is much “ more solemn ;” and so it 
is regarded as the prerogative of persons distinguished for 
learning and science, and has become a privilege of many 
orders in society.2 In Prussia, it has been moreover re- 
marked that, if Church discipline were once again actively 
enforced, and that the most important canons of the Primi- 
tive Church were put into execution, the most of those who 
are now discharging the duties of educational professors, and 
three-fourths of the Pastors, would be put at once under a 
ban of excommunication.® 


The Protestant Church in Germany has no room for a 
multiplicity of offices and vocations. Every one who enters 
into its service must be a preacher—must make that his 
main occupation; and he is, therefore, exposed to all the 
temptations and mischiefs which a constant call for public 
speaking must inevitably entail upon him. “He may, or he 


may not, have gifts for his office,” says Karsten, “but still he 


must preach; and by that which he least understands will 
the measure of his capability be taken; whilst that which he 
really does thoroughly comprehend, in the existing condition 
of his office, he cannot make use of for the benefit of the 
congregation.”* And then, how very few, in fine, will be 
found to be the number of really good preachers! If we 


1 HENGSTENBERG’S “ K.-Z.,” 1857, p. 60. 

2 Kurerorn’s “ Liturg. Abhandlungen,” i. 201. Froususs, p. 68, 
remarks, that in Berlin a few cigar-smokers are preferred to pastors as 
attendants upon the bodies of the deceased. 

? FrunBuss, p. 61. 

* “Die protest. Kirche,” p. 54. 








7 
: 
; 


CANDIDATES FOR HOLY ORDERS. 315 


reckon them up, we shall discover that not one-tenth part 
of the clergy are suited to be preachers.”! Hence comes the 
prevalence of aconventional style of speaking, of traditional 
cues, hollow phrases, and theological inanities, upon which, 
if one attempts to lay hold, they are found to. elude the 
grasp like a vaporous mist. The universal domination 
of mere phraseology has attained to an unexampled height 
amongst modern German homilists. “Shall we never have 
done,” exclaims the preacher Hoyer, “with the awful 
chattering of contemporary theology, which, like a bewilder- 
ing demon, has seized hold of our poor students, walks 
with them in their official duties, and talks with them in their 
sermons; and when it cannot render them unintelligible, is 
yet able to make them spiritless, tame, and disagreeable ?”? 
For a very long time, the wretched condition of candidates 
for holy orders has been discussed in writings, and debated 
in public conferences. ‘“ We are,” say the complaints of 
candidates for the office of preachers, “after we have 
terminated our academical studies, for the best part of our 
lives (very generally for fifteen years) excluded from the 
service of the Church. We must become tutors in public 
schools or private families for many years, and when we, at 
last, and at a late period of life, attain the position of preacher, 
we then find that occupations ‘not in accordance with our 
vocation’ have estranged us from it. “ Without any 
immediate connection with the Church,” so describes 
Schmieder their position, “without any cohesion amongst 
themselves, they wander about, isolated, homeless, often 
without any means of livelihood, a prey to want—utterly 
hopeless! The Church leaves them to their fate! How many 
candidates have been overwhelmed through this pressure of 
circumstances upon them, and have silently been destroyed 
by their misery !* A person has only to compare the organ- 
ization of the Protestant Church with the Catholic, where 


1 Cunz, “ Das geistliche Amt.,” p. 51. 

2 « Zeitschrift fir luth. Theologie,” 1855, 295. 

* LANDSCHREIBER, ‘‘ Die Kirkliche Situation.” Leipzig, 1860, p. 80. 
‘ “© Verhandlungen des Kirchentags zu Elberfeld,” p. 57. 


316 DOMESTIC CARES OF THE CLERGY. 


every young man, the moment his preparatory studies are 
completed, finds his fitting employment in the service of the 
Church; a person has only to make this comparison, and he 
will at once discover where lies the root of the evil so 
generally complained of.” 

It is well known that every candidate, so soon as he has 
obtained a position affording the necessary means for the 
maintenance of a family, enters into the state of marriage. 
Then anxiety respecting his income, and care concerning his 
wife and children, become the main affairs of life; and what 
a state of dependence and slavishness is inextricably bound 
up with his domestic circumstances, is briefly and graphi- 
cally portrayed by Schenkel.! “There arises,’ he justly 
observes, “fa species of demoralization, which is an unavoid- 
able concomitant of his condition, and compels him to be 
ever sufficiently prudent, so as not to give offence to person- 
ages of influence. This incompetent, inadequate, thought- 
smothering, unprotestant institution has had such a character- 
degrading effect in our German Protestant Church.” The 
opinion thus expressed is not incorrect; but then, that the 
questionable institution is unprotestant, is an opinion so far 
from being correct, that it may, on the contrary, be affirmed 
that it is one of the consequences naturally developed by the 
Reformation. 

Then there have been large districts and parishes of two, 
three, and four thousand souls, with two such parishes united 
in one, in order that a suitable maintenance might be pro- 
vided for “ the families” (of the clergymen). And yet the 
pressure of want is felt more and more by such “ families” 
every year. Thus, the Schleswig Consistory, in an Appeal 
made in the year 1858, had complained that “ there had 
lately been many parishes in which no one could venture to 
take upon himself the office of pastor, for the clergymen in 
them were in such constant anxiety to procure a sufficiency 
of daily bread for their families, that they had lost all satis- 
faction in the discharge of their parochial duties, and were 


1“ Die Erneuerung der deutschen evangelischen Kirche.” Gotha, 
1860, p. 55, 


THEIR DEPENDENT CONDITION, 317 


destitute of that ease of mind requisite for a proper per- 
formance of them.”! On all sides the description becomes 
still more gloomy of “ the destitution of the parish clergy,” 
of the increasing household expenditure of their “ families,” 
and of their incomes at the same time either remaining the 
same, or diminishing. It has been the custom to bestow the 
highest eulogies upon the prerogative of the clergy of the 
Evangelical Confession, that they, as husbands and fathers of 
families, were identified with laymen in their mode of life, 
united with them in social intercourse, and therefore form- 
ing no particular order in society, and belonging not to a 
distinct “caste,” and so being, in fact, made to correspond 
with, and carry out the doctrine of, “a common priesthood,” 
which required that there should be the greatest possible 
similarity of condition between laymen and _ preachers. 
Meanwhile it is shown, and there are a thousand voices to 
testify to the fact, that for three hundred years one constant 
complaint has been made, as to the rank of a preacher being 
universally despised, and their office so little prized, that 
they have very seldom been able to win the love or confi- 
dence of the people; and that the general disfavour in which 
they stood made itself painfully felt in the wretched income 
and the poverty-stricken state of the majority of the body. 
In the past century the contempt and degradation that had 
fallen upon the order of preachers, were the motive to Ja- 
blonsky for entering into a negotiation with England, and 
this with the approval of the Prussian Court, for the purpose 
of introducing the Episcopacy into Prussia.? In the year 
1792, a preacher mentions that the best theologians of the 
time were accustomed to lay upon Luther the responsibility 


1 Krause’s “ Kirchenzeitung,” 1858, p. 72. Compare with this the 
complaint made in the “‘ Géttinger Monatschrift,” 1849, p. 325: ‘In the 
smaller districts the preachers, with their families, cannot live without 
the greatest economy, and even so find it very difficult ‘to make both 
ends meet’ (kaum durch kommen).” 

2“ Christian Remembrancer,” 1845, i. 120. See Henxe’s “‘ Magazin,” 
v. 224, where will be found a vivid description of the prevailing con- 
tempt for clergymen. 


318 ALIENATION BETWEEN PASTORS AND PEOPLE. 


of their condition having become so lamentable.! In our 
own time the Prussian Government has desired to create a 
respect for the preachers’ class, by the bestowal of titles and 
orders,? and has shown itself quite willing to regard the 
clergy as a particle of its widely-extended, many-branched 
bureaucratic officials, and to permit it to have some share in 
the honours and prerogatives enjoyed by other government 
employés. The Upper Consistory of Mark has, indeed, 
complained that there is not the slightest prospect for 
preachers attaining to independence through a marriage with a 
wealthy wife, as few maidens with large dowries could ever be 
induced to prefer a preacher to any other person for ahusband!® 

To such lengths has an alienation between pastors and 
people reached, that, according to the declaration made by 
the preacher Kuntze at the meeting of “the Alliance” in 
Berlin, “the people being now estranged from the Church, 
look upon preachers, the Church, and Christianity itself, as 
a species of mere governmental and police institution, and 
exhibit in the plainest and most distinct manner their dislike 
and contempt for the three together.”* “So far,” he says, 
“as we are concerned, the Church has not the slightest in- 
fluence upon the feelings or consciences of the population. 
With such effect have persons laboured for the spiritualiza- 
tion of the Church, that body and spirit are both very nearly 
annihilated. In the estimation of the multitude, all that the 
pastor now represents is—himself!”> “ Amongst most con- 
gregations,” says Moll, “there is a dislike and an avoidance 
of any communication with the clergy; whilst a necessity 
for their services is neither felt nor understood. No confi- 
dence is reposed in the clergyman ; and the general exhorta- 
tion made by the Agenda to congregations, to seek in their 
spiritual necessities for the aid and counsel® of their pastors, 


1 Srerneck, “‘ Nachricht von dem Leben des J. M. Gitze.” Ham- 
burg, 1792, p. 19. 

* HENGSTENBERG’s ‘“ K.-Ztg.,” vol. xxx., p. 20. 

* HENGSTENBERG, Vol. xxx., p. 22. 

‘ Ibid., p. 22. 

* “ Verhandlungen,” p. 432. 

° HENGSTENBERG’S ‘ K,- Z.,” 1857, p. 690. 


DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE CLERGY. 319 


has scarcely been attended to by a single individual.”! 
“There exists,” said Jaspis, at the Church Assembly at 
Hamburg, in the year 1858, “a frightful partition between 
the people and their spiritual directors—so great is it, that 
in many places earnest clergymen give up all as lost, and do 
not venture to do anything.”? A year earlier, Dean Rinck 
had spoken the following bitter words, at a Church Assembly 
held in Stuttgart :—“ A universal complaint must be pre- 
ferred against our modern clergy, that they have so com- 
pletely abandoned the attempt to exercise an active personal 
influence upon the souls and families of those committed to 
their charge, as if it was their desire that the spiritual care 
of their flocks should be taken away from them.”* A highly 
respectable theologian of Wiirtemberg said to Professor 
Schaff, “The people now regard us clergymen as nothing 
better than royal officials and black-coated policemen.” 

So far have gone an absolute discouragement and complete 
despair as to the possibility of accomplishing any fruitful 
result with religion, that the question has been propounded, 
“‘ Whether or not a person ought to remain in the service of 
the Church, or if it was not absolutely necessary to leave it ?” 
Superintendent Thym refers to cases having occurred, within 
his own experience, as to how such a question assails and 
afflicts almost all pious souls who thoroughly comprehend 
the terrific perdition of the time, and who are also well 
aware how little they, with all their labours, can do to miti- 
gate it.° 

A Wiirtemberg clergyman remarks: “The Church has 
disappeared—even almost to its very name—both amongst 
the educated classes and with the multitude in Germany. 
Theologians, indeed, speak much of a Church—that is, of 

1“ Die gegenwirtige Noth der evang. Kirche Preussens,” pp. 11, 26. 


2 “ Verhandlungen, herausgeben v. Biernatzki,” p. 8. 

3 “ Verhandlungen,” p. 140. 

‘“ Germany, its Universities, Theology, and Religion.” Edinburgh, 
1857, p. 116. 

s ‘“‘Ist die evangeliche Kirche Babel, und der Austritt aus ihr daher 
unerlissliche Pflicht,” Yon SpENnER, iiberarbeitet von Tuym. Griefs- 
walde, 1853. 


320 RELIGIOUS CONDITION OF THE LAITY. 


the dignity, power,-and revenues of a Church. The people, 
too, now and again go ‘into the church;’ but it is only as 
‘the public’ they go there, and not as ‘a congregation; but 
that they themselves are a part of the Church—that they are 
the living stones wherewith are built up the edifice of an 
ecclesiastical community—that is a thing either not thought 
of, or it has never been brought home to their understanding. 
Cesaro-Papism, and still more Bureaucraticism combined 
with Nationalism, have impaired the Church utterly, and 
given to it the appearance of being nothing better than a 
mere political association; whilst Pietism has abolished the 
last remnant of all right notions respecting a true Church 
community, by concentrating such notions upon its own little 
‘ gatherings’ (Gemeinschaften). Inthe place of an objective 
Church creed, there is everywhere to be met with the indi- 
vidual ‘subjective stand-point’—the individual ‘ sovereign I,’ 
and the spirit of ‘individualism’—the spirit of these times, 
with its pass-words and talismans, which persons prefer bearing 
rather than submit themselves to the yoke of Christ and the 
creed of the Reformers.”! Not less disheartening is the 
judgment pronounced by two Saxon clergymen: “ The 
Church knows nothing of the necessities and spiritual wants 
of its members; it has for them neither eyes, hands, nor 
heart ; it holds no relation with daily life; it is nothing more 
than a Sunday institution, and is unconscious of all that 
passes during the week. Preaching and baptism, surplice- 
fees and theological squabbles, are the sole visible signs by 
which its existence is made known to the bulk of mankind.’”? 


When the present situation of the Protestant clergy in 
Germany is portrayed, the description, of course, includes 
an account of the religious eondition of the laity. What is 
said of the one is, for the most part, applicable to the others. 
All tends to prove this lamentable fact—the masses are non- 
Churchmen. It would be both weakness and folly to waste 


1 Scnarr’s “‘ Kirchenfreund,” 1857, p. 416. 
*Kirchen und Schulblatt,” von Truscner und HaANnscHMANN. 
Weimar, 1852, p. 65. 


SOURCE OF DANGER TO PROTESTANTISM. 321 


time in useless lamentations over this circumstance. What 
is necessary to be done is to look the fact straight in the 
face.! A broad and deep chasm lies between Theology and 
the Christian knowledge of the people: the one has ascended 
to the highest point of speculation, whilst the latter is still 
stumbling through the alphabet.? The Erlangen theologians 
complain “that every one amongst the Protestant popula- 
tions fancies he can make a religion for himself, and no one 
any longer rightly knows what he ought to believe and what 
he ought to maintain; and with this confusion in their ideas, 
the people are also to be remarked for having lost their 
moral stability.” 

But what might occur if a knowledge of the true state of 
affairs should penetrate amongst those who may be rightfully 
called “the people,’ and especially amongst the intellectual 
and educated classes? It may sound like a paradox, but 
still every one who thoroughly comprehends the subject will 
admit its truth—that the universal religious indifference of 
the educated classes at this moment is the chief security for 
the existence of the Protestant Church. If there once 
awakens in those circles a living interest for religious matters ; 
if they take the Bible in their own hands for the purpose of 
testing their religion; if they should desire to learn in what 
relation to each other stand the now existing theology and 
the doctrines taught from the pulpit, and how their preachers 
coincide in their opinions with those expressed in other states 
and countries—if they should do these things, there will 
come the day of discovery and of exposure; and then, too, 
the confidence now reposed in the Church will be at an end. 
Then also will they perceive that Luther’s Bible not merely 
abounds with gross faults and misapprehensions of the 
original text, but also that he frequently and intentionally, 
and for the purpose of upholding his doctrine, disguised the 
Apostolic words; and that the Epistle of St. Paul in par- 


1 “* Sachsisches Kirchenblatt.” Preface to 1860. 
2 Ibid., 1860, No. vi. 
* “* Zeitschr. fir Protestantismus,” vol. xx., p. 371. 


322 IGNORANCE OF PROTESTANT LAYMEN. 


ticular was mishandled by him.! They would learn, also, 
that the grand “acquisition” of the Reformation, the Pro- 
testant “ Justification” doctrine, is now abandoned by the 
most distinguished theologians as “untenable,” and by the 
exegetists branded as “ unbiblical.” Nitzsch, indeed, recom- 
mends to theologians silently to correct the symbol ;? but 
the time cannot be far distant when this silent correction 
will become notorious to the multitude; and the secret will 
not long remain unspoken, viz., that not asingle theologian of 
any name or note binds himself down to the Confessional 
writings. 

The first prelate of the Saxon Church, Liebner, a short 
time since, portrayed, in the darkest colours, the utter want 
in Christian knowledge, “which was,” he said, “actually 
astounding, not only amongst the multitude attached to the 
German Evangelical Church, but even amongst the great 
body of the educated classes.”* The Churches of his Con- 
fession appeared to him to resemble a Manichean world—a 
kingdom of light, composed of German theology and its 
guardians; a kingdom of darkness, composed of laymen, for 
the main part deeply immersed in negative and positive 
ignorance; and both the light and the darkness standing in 
strong contrast opposed to one another. That, beyond all 
other things concerning which the great mass of laymen had 
formed the most perverse notions, was first as to the Reforma- 
tion, and then of Luther himself. “The laymen,” such is 

1 The only preacher of whom it is known that he, on this point, con- 
ducted himself with candour towards his congregation, was the Prussian 
preacher, Ehrenstrém, who afterwards emigrated to America. He taught 
Greek to members of his congregation, and then pointed out to them the 
different passages that Luther had falsely translated. (WANGEMANN’S 
“Preuss. Kirchengeschichte,” iii. 182). On the other hand, PALMER 
(‘* HomiLerixk,” p. 303) emphatically warns all preachers never to say to 
. the people that this or that passage was falsely translated by Luther— 
that the fact was to be as a mystery, ori which they were to remain silent ; 
or, at the utmost, all they ought to do should be to admit that the trans- 
lation was obscure and indistinct. 

2 * Deutsche Zeitschrift,” viii. 201. 

3‘ Zur Kirchlichen Prinzipienfrage der Gegenwart; Zeugnisse a. d 
Siichsischen Kirchenregimente.” Dresden, 1860, p. 19. 


SEVERE QUESTIONS. 323 


Liebner’s opinion, “have pictured to themselves Luther as 
a man who was to be venerated as a grand deliverer, who had 
freed them not merely from the yoke of Popes, Bishops, and 
Councils, but also from the tutorship of Protestant theologians, 
and conferred upon each man the right to believe according 
to the extent of his faith, and to live according to the measure 
of his conscience. Such, however,” he added, “is not the 
Luther of the theologians.” 

Laymen, on the other side, counterbalance these heavy 
complaints with severe replies. “When,” it is said, “ Liebner 
so loudly lauds the high pretensions of existing theology,! and 
that it has been in constant unity and continuity with the 
Scripture, and exhibiting itself as a progressive and internally 
developing Church, and, therefore, to be truly Catholic, then 
can intelligent laymen ask—‘ Have you yourselves not unfre- 
quently said, and proved to us, that the Reformation was the 
deepest and most incurable breach that ever had been made 
in the unity and continuity of the Church? Is it not, too, 
an admitted fact that the main doctrine of the new Church 
was previously completely unknown, and that it was not a 
Continuation, but a Negation of doctrine hitherto taught ? 
Is the destruction of the Primacy, the Episcopacy, and the 
entire Church Constitution, a perduration of Ecclesiastical 
Continuity ? Is annihilation the same thing as devel- 
opment and perpetuation? You reproach us with wan- 
dering in the dark night of theological ignorance; but, 
before you repeat the reproach, place, if you can, in our hands 
an Ariadne thread, which will help to guide us in safety out 
of the labyrinth of doubt and uncertainty in which we are 
now straying. Give us a clear answer to this most urgent 
of all questions— Who is it that we are to believe? Is it 
the particular preacher beneath whose pulpit accident has 
placed us? Is it the Consistory of the country? Is it the 


1 Ibid., p. 37. So had Staunt, in a preceding year, in a discourse upon 
ecclesiastical congregational order, spoken ‘‘ of the faith of the Church 
being the same for centuries.” Is it possible that Stahl fancied he could 
persuade the Berliners that what their forefathers believed in the year 
1580 was that which had been believed by the people of Berlin in 1516 ? 


¥2 


324 MODERN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY. 


theological Faculty of the National University? Is it the 
temporal Prince, who is also a Supreme Bishop? Is it the 
symbolical books, from which every theologian has emancipated 
himself? Is it our own private judgment upon particular 
passages of the Bible? We take up your latest commenta- 
tors upon the Bible to help us on our way—and what do we 
discover? ‘Ten different explanations of one and the same 
passage in the Scriptures, and each explanation backed up by 
the name of some celebrated theologian! How many are the 
confirmatory passages in Scripture cited in the symbolical 
books, to which a different interpretation is now attached 
from that there assigned to them? We have asked you for 
bread, and you have given usa stone. You have always on 
your lips the words Protestant Freedom, but it isan iron yoke 
which you lay upon us; it is a spiritual bondage that you 
would exact from laymen. Should we accept, with a blind 
faith, doctrine from a preacher who is bound by no higher 
authority than himself, and cannot prove that the doctrine he 
teaches is a common, general, and accepted doctrine? It 
has been said by one of yourselves: A community can never 
be more grossly tyrannized over than when it is compelled to 
place itself beneath the unrestrained will of any one indi- 
vidual—and when it must be guided in accordance with his 
peculiar notions.’ ”! 

When Liebner maintains that his own and his colleagues’ 
theology contains within its bosom all the saving means which 
the necessities of the time require, but that this is only a 
secret doctrine—so he allows all sorts of conjectures to be 
formed as to the meaning of his mystery ; whilst a very 
different opinion is loudly expressed by others as to what 
have been the achievements of theology in the present day. 
A very short time has elapsed since Stahl made the declara- 
tion “that the theological science of Germany was at best 
but a double-edged sword, and as capable of inflicting a 
wound upon faith as infidelity.”? So, too, Professor Krafft, 
of Bonn, and the preacher Beyschlag complained, at the 

? Karsten, “ Die protest. Kirche,” p. 29. 
2 Messner’s “ K.-Ztg.,” 1861, p. 377. 


DETERMINATION OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 325 


Berlin meeting of the Evangelical Alliance, that the modern 
orthodox theology, with its recoil upon the symbolical books, 
was the principal cause of the religious weakness of German 
Protestantism.! 

The Bible Societies have for the last fifty years distri- 
buted in Germany, as in other places, millions of Bibles. 
Even the poorest person can now, with very little trouble, 
possess a German Bible. The effect, however, is, according 
to the assurance of a preacher, “ that there is no book less 
studied than the Bible—that amongst a hundred Christian 
households there was scarcely one to be found in which the 
Holy Scriptures were still read.”? ‘ The people,” says 
Giider, “nurture a secret distrust of the Scriptures.” * 
“Even the best amongst the country people,” observes 
another, “ mostly read it only on Sundays and festival 
days.”* 

Nevertheless, it has lately happened that a Faculty alto- 
gether theological declared “that naught of the doctrine of 
the Church can now be referred to by the preachers in their 
addresses to the people; because the main decisive question 
is—‘ Why and wherefore they should believe?’ And this 
misleads the people as to a false notion that, when they are 
taught to believe anything upon the mere human authority of 
the Evangelical Church, they should also be bound to accept 
an interpretation of the Scripture for doing so. And hence 
it is that no preacher can suggest to his congregation that 
they should simply receive his doctrine, but he must refer 
each to an examination of the Bible for himself—and it is 
the result of this self-study, and not the testimony of his 
own Church, that is to determine the acceptance of Chris- 
tian doctrine. And with this state of circumstances, it is 
found that nineteen out of every twenty of the still church- 
going population must be declared to be creedless; and if 
one should be able to carry into effect this theory upon the 


1“ Verhandlungen,” pp. 187, 196. 

? THoLvuck’s “ Liter. Anz.,” 1845, p. 289. 
* “ Deutsche Zeitschrift,” 1855, p. 151. 

* HENGSTENBERG, “ K.-Z.,” 1852, p. 873. 


326 A CHURCH OF THE FUTURE. 


creed preached from the pulpit, the churches would soon 
become empty—a -matter upon which the Faculty would 
give themselves so much the less trouble, as they have here 
a very weighty authority on their side—namely, the Evan- 
gelical Alliance, whose second Article has determined “ that 
it is the right and the duty of every Christian man to inter- 
pret the Scripture according to his own conviction of its 
meaning.” Theologians and preachers, who have attached 
themselves in crowds to the Alliance, in Berlin, have ac- 
cepted this Article without hesitation. It is not as yet 
adopted in the Catechism. How many laymen, it may be 
asked, are there in all Germany, who think of this “ duty,” 
and of fully performing it ? 


There is a small number of Lutheran theologians, men of 
very earnest views, and who in reality imagine that, woful 
as may now be the appearance of the Lutheran Church in 
Germany, still it bears within itself, and it alone does 
so, every hope of a better state of Church affairs in the 
future. Somewhat larger may be the number of those who 
bind up their expectations with “the United Church,” and 
dream of a grand development for it at a near period. 
A few thoughtful theologians, however, acknowledge that 
neither “ Lutheranism” nor “ Calvinism,” nor a com- 
mingling of both elements into a “ Unionism,”’ can have 
either a long duration, or hold out the hope of a vigorous 
development, and therefore they await a Church of the future. 
This fact must, indeed, be admitted by every believing 
Christian, that the present state of Church fragmentation 
cannot possibly be a normal state, nor be of long con- 
tinuance; but, on the contrary, “that the Church’s inborn 
essence of Unity will yet overcome that disruption which has 
been effected by the powers of this world.” } 

In this future Unity it is said that even the Catholic 
Church will be included; and that it should, in essential 
things, become Protestant, is what is naturally required ; as 


1 Thus do the Gottingen theologians express themselves in their Decla- 
ration, 1854, p. 66. 


UNION OF THE TWO CHURCHES. 327 


well as that its “reserved” organism should be destroyed. 
For this, it is hoped, events sooner or later will provide. Now, 
the right view to take of such a notion as this is—“ that an 
amalgamation of the Catholic Church with the Protestant, 
so that the peculiarities of both may be transferred into 
one United Church, is—an impossibility.” That which is 
essentially Catholic, and that which is essentially Protes- 
tant, are not like the two opposite sides of the same sub- 
stantiality, which conjointly make it complete, and united 
together form a richer and more harmonious totality; but 
they stand in relation to each other as two repellents, for the 
one is a negative of the other. 

A union of the two Churches, through amalgamation, 
could only be effected by the one of them ceasing to be what 
it is, and breaking off from its tradition—whether that tra- 
dition was Protestant or Catholic. 

The acceptation of one single principle, upon the one side 
or the other, would be sufficient to attain this object. At 
the moment, for instance, in which German Protestantism 
should acknowledge that there is a Church, in the sense of 
one that is real, divine, with promises and power, and an 
established institution, then, in that moment, it would enter 
upon the process of being Catholicised; and so, too, would 
the Catholic Church be self-dissolved upon the day in which 
it would accept the Second Article of the Evangelical 
Alliance, and proclaim—“ that no one must henceforth 
submit himself to religious authority, but must, on the con- 
trary, found his faith, in the last instance, upon nothing else 
than his own interpretation of the Bible.” 

Fichte (if the author mistakes not) was the first who, in 
1806, gave expression to the notion, “that there must, 
out of Peter’s (the Catholic) and Paul’s (the Protestant) 
Churches, be a third, which would be a transfiguration and 
amalgamation of the two, and which, by “the abolition 
of the peculiarities” of each, should be their successor— 
“a John’s Church.” Schelling, at a later period, in his lec- 
tures, expatiated on this idea, and it has, since then, been 
many times referred to with great applause. Thus, for 


328 EXPECTATION OF A NEW CHURCH. 


instance, Professor Piper, in the Church Assembly at Stutt- 
gart, in 1857, consoled his auditors with the expectation of 
their yet beholding a “ John’s Church.”! So also has 
Merz presented his readers with a view of “a Church of 
Humanity of the living John ;” and, with this John’s 
Church, the commencement of “a fourth revolution in the 
Church.”? 

Ullman,’ yielding to a like turn of thought, has discovered 
three leading forms of Christianity, which found an outward 
manifestation in the Greek, Roman, and Protestant Churches; 
and then directs attention to a fourth, in which Christianity, 
as a religion of the Divinity with humanity, will constitute 
itself as a perfect absolute religion, and be “ the Church of 
the future.” 

Such a notion as this is doubtless at the present moment 
very widely extended. As to the comparison of the opposi- 
tion between Catholicity and Protestantism, as a difference 
between Peter and Paul, it is intrinsically untrue, and will 
scarcely be regarded as permissible by any theologian; whilst 
there are doubtless many theologians who suppose that there 
will yet be a new Church, in which there will be but one 
shepherd and one flock, and that this Church will present 
itself in a form very different from that which is now exhi- 
bited by Protestantism. 

If one would describe, as does the Berlin “ Deutsche 
Zeitschrift,” the existing Protestant Church as “a mere 
outward form, a stranger alike to the sympathies and life of 
the people, and as the mere ruin of times that have passed 
away ;‘ or if the notion concerning it be that expressed by 
Schenkel, Lange, and Rothe,’ that “ Protestantism has never 
yet brought forth one real, substantial, operative Church,” 


1 “ Verhandlungen,” p. 48. 

2 “ Armuth und Christenthum,” p. 88. 

* ““ Wesen des Christenthums.” Hamburg, 1849. 

4“ Jahrg.,” 1851, p. 304. © 

5 Rorue’s ‘‘ Theol. Ethik,” iii. 1012. Scnenxen, ‘‘ Das Prinzip des 
Protestantismus,” p. 11. Lancer, ‘‘ Uber die Neugestaltung des Ver- 
haltnisses zwischen Staat und Kirche,” 1848, p. 89. 


HOPE OF A SECOND PENTECOST. 329 


then indeed are persons justified in fixing their thoughts 
upon “a future” or “a John’s Church ;” or they must, like 
Hase, begin to prophesy of the downfall of Christianity itself, 
and of the birth and predominance of a completely new re- 
ligion. As to the budding forth of a Church in the State, 
such as Rothe expects, it must be a future Church of a 
peculiar constitution—in fact, nothing less than a Universal 
State Church! 

But when an attempt is made to impart a corporeal, 
substantial form to this shadow of a future Church, then are 
the ideologists found to evaporate in empty phrases, or they 
picture forth a modern millennium, and emit a cluster of 
hopes, and a swarm of wishes, bright, brilliant, fugacious 
and volatile as butterflies, “and in whose actuality the simple 
Christian will place as little faith as any other human being 
in his sober senses.” ! 

In close connexion with these expectations of a new 
Church is to be found in all the Protestant portions of 
Europe a very general and longing desire for a new “ descent 
of the Holy Ghost.” In England there are some prayer 
societies established for that purpose. At the Church As- 
sembly in Berlin, and in despite of the unanimous adhesion 
to an unchanged Augsburg Confession, the cry went forth 
“that there could be no salvation without a new descent of 
the Holy Ghost!” In the pulpits, as in pamphlets, a second 
Pentecost, without which it was said “the world could not 
much longer go on, was wished for, and therefore was to be 
expected.” Even Delitzsch? himself says, “It is indis- 
pensable that there should be a descent of the Spirit from 
above.” Such a repetition of the Festival of Pentecost is, 
however, neither promised in Scripture, nor in the eighteen 


1 Such is the proper remark of the ‘ Zeitschrift fiir luth. Theol.,” 
1857, p. 311. ‘‘These churches of the future,” says Rudelbach, in the 
same journal (1853, p. 90), ‘“‘are the scabies of the day, and bear with 
them all the characteristics of that malady—they show that there is in- 
wardly decay, and exteriorly, irritation.” 

2“ Krlanger Zeitschrift fiir Protest.,” 1858, p. 305. 


330 EXPECTATION OF A MILLENNIUM. 


hundred years of the duration of the Church has it ever been 
either desired or hoped for.' 

Near to these hopeful expectants, who are looking forward 
to a new Church, and to a second Pentecost as the birth-day 
of their new Church, are those numerous individuals, more 
down-hearted or less aspiring in their anticipations, who 
announce the near approach of the ending of this world, and 
the return of Jesus Christ to judgment, or to the commence- 
ment of the millennium. 

When an expectation of a millennium of an earthly kingdom 
of Christ shews itself (the Augsburg Confession notwith- 
standing) amongst the Lutherans,? it is to be regarded, 
as being based upon their despair of any improvement of 
their Church, as a perception of the inevitable dissolution of 
that Church; and to such sentiments must be attributed the 
origin of such an idea. Clergy and theologians who stand 
like incompetent physicians by the sick-bed of their Church 
are, it may be said, “ born Chiliasts.” By them it is said: 
“The discipline of faith has no hold any more either above 
or below—and even the simple but true preaching of the 
Gospel encounters manifold contradictions or multitudinous 
indifference.”? Or they take the same view with Rudelbach, 
when he says, “ Where one fortress of Lutheran orthodoxy 
tumbles down after another, and when at the head-quarters 
(of Lutheranism) there is such an awful chasm opened, then 
must it be plainly seen that the days in which we live are 
ripe for the great apostasy.” 4 

Many, too, seek for salvation and consolation in new 
interpretations of the Apocalypse, and in a reference to the 


1 “Tf such a notion,” says Hase, with respect to it, ‘is seriously enter- 
tained, then these persons place their hopes in the performance of a 
miracle, such as has not occurred since the times of the Apostles. In so 
doing they only openly declare their despair to conduct their religious 
affairs in accordance with that historical and natural development with 
which Christ has guided his Church through eighteen hundred centuries.” 
—‘* Prot. K.-Z.,” 1856, p. 1151. 

2 Recently by Lessing, Florke, Karsten, &c. 

§’ HENGSTENBERG’S “ K.-Z.,” 1859, p. 1181. 

* “ Zeitschrift fiir luth. Theologie,” 1859, p. 255. 


CONSOLING PROSPECTS FOR THE CREDULOUS. 331 


approaching millennium, when and where all that is now 
wanting to the Protestantism of to-day shall be supplied, 
and “the crooked ways be made straight.” And then—there 
is Auberlen, who has recently discovered that the whole 
visible Church, including even the Protestant portion of it, 
has become part and parcel of “the harlot” in the Apoca- 
lypse, and, therefore, there is nothing left to mankind but to 
await the millennium ;! and another, Nigelsbach, is charmed 
with Auberlen’s “consolation for all, who on the one side 
would willingly aid the Church, but on the other see no 
possible means of being able to render it effectual assist- 
ance”—so that, in fact, all that any one is able to do is—to 
wait !? : 

Others, like Baumgarten, admit that the existing Church 
is fundamentally perverted, but they console themselves 
with the prospect of a speedy conversion of the Jews. 
“The whole development of the Church hitherto,” it is 
maintained by Baumgarten, is a gross erratic wandering of 
State-Churchdom—a degenerate Heathenish Church; but 
that converted Israel is destined to become for all nations 
“the redeeming and sanctifying head,”® and will once more 
present a bleeding victim in the temple of Jerusalem! It 
is more positively announced by another that there will soon 
appear one who has been foretold by Christ as an earthly 
Consoler and Messias. We are now, it is said, in the 
year 5976 of the Redemption, and in the year 6000 will be 
the first resurrection and the millennium.‘ 

Finally, the present Minister of Public Worship and 
Education in Prussia, Von Bethmann-Hollweg, shortly be- 
fore his appointment to office, gave expression to his despair 
in Chiliastic aspirations.® “ To the Apostles, Peter and 


1“ Der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis,” 1854, p. 294. 

? ReuTER’s “‘ Repertor.,” vol. xcii., p. 204, and again in vol. ciii., p. 85. 

* HENGSTENBERG’S ‘ K.-Ztg.,” 1859, p. 697. 

* CurisTIANvs, ‘‘ Das Evangelium des Reiches ;” Leipzig, 1859. The 
author asserts that he has availed himself especially of the works of the 
Erlanger theologian, Von Hofmann. 

§ In GeizeEr’s ‘‘ Monatsbliittern,” 1858, vol. xi. p. 126. 


332 PROTESTANTISM IN GERMANY. 


Paul, who have each had their Churches, for a time must 
that of John succeed. In Church and State are alike 
exhibited the counteraction of every progressive step—there 
is dissolution both in State and in Church; there is the 
decay of organic forms, and there is an incapacity in the age 
to create new. Both Church and State must perish in their 
earthly forms, that the kingdom of Christ may be set up over 
all nations—that the bride of the Lamb, the perfect com- 
munity, the new Jerusalem, may descend from Heaven.” 

Not long before this was published, another Protestant 
Statesman had warned his Protestant readers to turn away 
from false prophets who announce the end of the world, be- 
cause they have come to an end of their own wisdom.! 


A description of the present state of ecclesiastical affairs 
makes it necessary to devote a few sentences to a description 
of the position which Protestantism in Germany maintains 
with regard to the Catholic Church. The adherents of both 
Confessions associate and intermingle daily more and more 
with each other. With equal steps they advance, and a 
contact of mind with mind becomes more frequent; and 
everywhere the Protestant churches and congregations place 
themselves close to the Catholics; and they do so as— 
adversaries. Even in the extremities of the North, as of the 
South, the toleration of a foreign faith can now only be 
a question of time. As to the situation which Catholics 
appear to occupy, it shall be referred to in another place. 
What is desired in this part of the work is to fix attention 
upon the course of conduct exhibited by the ecclesiastical 
leaders and orators of the Protestant Church towards the 
Catholic, and on the false position in which they place them- 
selves. . 

This may, with truth, be said—that Catholic tendenciés 
lie at the bottom of the whole movement that has been made 
towards a religious life and an ecclesiastical restoration in 
Protestantism. He who has watched this movement receives 
the same impression as if he saw a number of individuals 


1 Bunsen, ‘‘ Gott in der Geschichte,” i. 133. 


ITS RELATION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 333 


thrust into a narrow, stifling, dark, and loathsome cell; and 
that those who were so packed together were attempting to 
open now this door and then that, in order that they might 
inhale fresh air and new strength; but that, with every such 
attempt, there pealed forth in their ears a loud chorus of 
clerical and lay voices, exclaiming—“ Shut out the miasma; 
keep away from you the foul grave-stench that arises from 
old, mouldering tombs.” It is with the reproach, “ You are 
becoming Catholic,” that the opponents of the movement 
have sought to check it. It is with the cry, “ You want to 
make Catholics of us,” that the great masses of the population 
have, for twenty years, repelled every earnest effort made 
towards the enrichment and improvement of Protestantism 
in dogma, in ecclesiastical life, and in the Divine service. 
Who can deny that, consistently with the principles from 
which the spirit of Protestantism has originated, such a 
course of conduct—so marked with fear and caution—is not 
perfectly natural? “The attitude of Protestantism,” says 
Stahl, “is ever that of the Borghese gladiator. It is a per- 
manent assault, the uttermost tension of every sinew and 
muscle, against Rome. Its whole energy is directed to this 
point—never to let near it Catholic doctrine and discipline, 
as the smallest manifestation in that direction excites far 
more horror than would be caused by the grossest trans- 
gression in an opposite way, &c., &e., &¢.”! 

In the years 1848-1851 there were many signs given, from 
which might be inferred a closer approximation of the two 
Confessions: it appeared as if both—the motives and doc- 
trines which separated them not being brought prominently 
forward—could, and did, cordially join hand in hand together 
for the common protection and preservation of moral and 
religious principles, both in political and social life. In the 
Diet of some provinces such an association of believing Pro- 
testants and Catholics had been formed with very happy 
results. It had so shewn itself that, in most of the affairs 
then pending, the only alternative to choose between was, 
“ Christianity or Atheism’—and at such a crisis the causes 


1 “ Die lutherische Kirche und die Union.” Berlin, 1859, p. 456. 


334 RESOLUTION OF THE BREMEN ASSEMBLY. 


for a separation of creeds had better be avoided as questions 
for discussion. But then came the Church Assembly in 
Bremen, which must have produced a deep and painful im- 
pression in all parts of Catholic Germany; because there 
the great majority of an Assembly, composed of professors 
and clergymen, expressed themselves with such bitter and 
unrelenting hatred against a Church to which belonged the 
larger number of their own countrymen, as well as a pre- 
ponderating number of all baptized Christians. A particular 
provocation on the part of the Catholics had not been given 
to afford an opportunity, or to supply a pretext, for any such 
explosion. And yet, at that Assembly, a resolution was 
unanimously passed : “ That the expression of this confessional 
hatred should, in every German congregation, be adopted as 
a constituent portion of the Divine service, and that in every 
place should again be sung forth the words : 

‘ As pious men, we pray and hope 

For sudden death to Turk and Pope.’”! 

Rationalist times had made a change with regard to those 
words, which theologians and pastors, having now again 
become believers, deemed it to be an urgent task for them to 
restore to popularity, and again excite the people to their 
repetition! An intimation as to the probable or necessary 
consequences of such circumstances as these, or what may be 
their signification as pathological symptoms, it does not 
belong to us here to notify; but we supply the place that might 
be otherwise occupied, by the expression of opinions formed 
by two individuals, who, from the high official positions for- 
merly held by them, had the best opportunity of knowing 
the matters of which they spoke, and who were both the most 
determined political opponents of Catholic interests, and 
both zealous friends and supporters of the Evangelical Church. 
These two individuals are the President von Gerlach antl 
the Privy-Councillor Eilers. The first of these says: “ We 
daily see how small, in comparison with the power of the 
Catholic Church, is the influence which the Evangelical has 


+“ Und steur’ des Papsts und Tiirken Mord !” “ Verhandlungen,” p. 
152. 


CONCILIATORY ADMISSION. 335 


upon the enlightenment and sanctification of the mass of the 
population, and upon the majority of its own members. The 
cause for this is not far to seek.”! 

The second of these, Eilers, was well known as one of the 
most influential officials in the Eichhorn Administration, and 
who, in his day, held in his own hands the management of 
three newspapers, devoted to the purpose of opposing the 
Catholic Church; and which were, for that purpose, subsid- 
ized by the Government. These are his words: “I have 
made it my study to ascertain the connection that exists 
between what is the Christian life of the Catholic population, 
and its institutions and practices; and, with an unwilling 
heart, 1 am compelled to admit that, in general, a far more 
Christian-like life is led by those who belong to the Catholic 
than to the Evangelical Church. It is a well recognised fact 
that the Evangelical clergy, in general, are far—very far— 
behind the Catholic in their devotion and efficiency in the 
discharge of their pastoral duties.” 

When two laymen express themselves in a manner so rea- 
sonable and conciliatory, may it not be hoped that the time 
is coming, and perhaps is already near, when preachers and 
theologians may give way to milder thoughts and gentler 
expressions—and that they may learn to think and believe 
that what, upon the whole, the Catholic Church in Germany 
has done is no more than it could not leave undone? All 
the reproaches and complaints made against the Church 
amount to this—that those—preferred under the name of a 
reformation and a breaking away from the past, have been 
refuted—that the,Church has remained true to the commission 
entrusted to it: and thus adhering firmly to the principles on 
which it was established, it has regularly and consistently 
been developed; and, furthermore, that, rigidly abiding with 
unbroken steadiness to its ecclesiastical life, and in cohesion 
with other portions of the same Church, it has fulfilled—its 
mission. 

1“ Aktenstiicke aus der Verwaltung des evangel. Oberkirchenraths.” 
Berlin, 1856, iii. 423. 

? Erters, ‘‘ Meine Wanderung durch’s Leben.” Leipzig, ii. p. 226. 


336 


THE POPE AND THE STATES OF THE CHURCH 


TO THE TIME OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 


Down to the period of the fall of the Western Roman 
Empire, ‘the Popes were subjects of the Roman Emperors. 
They stood, subsequently to the close of the fifth century, in 
the same relation with respect to the Ostrogoth kings of 
Italy; and one of the Pontiffs, John I., died in the prison 
into which he had been thrown by King Theodoric. When 
the Ostrogoths had been overthrown by the arms of the 
Byzantines, the Popes then became subjects of the Eastern 
Roman Emperors. The Popes, although grossly maltreated, 
and placed in an embarrassing position, between Constanti- 
nople, the Exarchate, and the Longobards (ever craving for 
the possession of Rome), still continued constantly to increase, 
both in power and influence, in Italy. At the close of the 
sixth century the Pope was already the richest landowner in 
the Peninsula. Large patrimonies scattered over the whole 
of the Peninsula, as well as in Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and 
even France, belonged to the Pontiff; and these being attended 
to by ecclesiastical managers, enabled the Pope to supply the 
population of Rome with food, and to purchase peace from 
the Longobards. Gregory the Great exercised upon his 
numerous estates a certain jurisdiction, and superintended 
the Imperial Government officers. And then, in the same 


BREACH BETWEEN ROME AND CONSTANTINOPLE. 337 


proportion in which the Eastern Roman sovereignty became 
crippled, and that the Exarchate was scarcely able to main- 
tain itself against the strength of the Longobards, the power 
of the Pope naturally rose of itself, and the temporal 
dominion of Rome fell to him—not as a possession to be 
ambitiously sought for, but as a mere matter of necessity 
and duty. The Popes were compelled to become war-leaders, 
to build fortifications, to enlist soldiers, and to appoint 
officers. 

The iconoclast strife, combined with the harsh, provoking 
Church-intermeddling and political despotism of the new 
Byzantine Soldier-Emperors, led to a breach between Rome 
and Constantinople, and this breach to the loss of the rich 
Papal territories in Sicily and Lower Italy, which were taken 
by violence away from the Papal See, by the Emperor Leo. 
For this loss a rich recompense was soon afforded. The 
Longobard king, Luitprand, with a generosity not common 
to that prince, presented a portion of Southern Tuscany to 
the Church of St. Peter; and the Frank king, Pepin, made 
over, in the same way, the districts that he conquered— 
Emilia, Flaminia, and the Pentapolis—that is, the land on 
the sea coast, from the mouth of the Po to Ancona; and 
eastward, from the ridge of the Apennines tothe Reno.! The 


1 It will, we conceive, be useful to the general reader, before accom- 
panying the author in his sketch of the history of the Papal States, to 
know exactly what territories were comprised in them, previous to any 
recent invasion from Piedmont. Upon the return of Pope Pius LX. to 
Rome, he issued several edicts in the months of September, October, and 
November, 1850, regulating various details as to institutions, and estab- 
lishing the following organization, which makes known the names of the 
various districts and provinces over which he ruled as Sovereign :— 

“The whole of the State was distributed into five great divisions. One 
of these was to bear the name of the District of Rome (‘ Circondario di 
Roma’), and the other four were to be termed ‘ Legations.’ The great 
divisions were subdivided into provinces, the provinces again into 
governments, and the governments into communes. : 

“In the district of Rome were included, besides Rome and the 


Comarca, or country immediately about the city, three provinces—-Viterbo, 
Civita Vecchia, and Orvieto. 


‘* The four Legations were— 


338 ROME AND THE FRANKISH KINGS. 


Pope, on his side—although he and the Romans still acknow- 
ledged, in theory, the Byzantine authority—granted to the 
Frankish king and his sons the Roman “ Patriciate””—that is 
to say, the office of “ Protector of Rome, and of the Roman 
See.” 

Although Pepin had laid the keys of the towns of the 
Exarchate on the altar of St. Peter at Rome, still, the Pope 
could exercise no real authority in them; on the contrary, 
Sergius, and, after him, Leo, constituted themselves Arch- 
bishops of the richly-endowed Church of Ravenna, and 
rulers over the Exarchate; and when, by the victories of 
Charlemagne, the endowments were renewed, still the Papal 
See did not obtain exclusive governmental power within the 
district. The Frankish kings granted to the Church of 
Rome the revenues of the lands, but retained for themselves 
the supreme authority over them.! Charlemagne, indeed, 
confirmed the endowments of his father, and in subsequent 
years added to them new patrimonies and revenues, and gave 
Tuscan cities to the Pope; and we see afterwards—that is, 
after 780—the Pope in possession of the dominion of 
Ravenna, but still acknowledging the supremacy of Charle- 
magne, by asteady execution of the imperial commands.’ The 
city of Rome belonged to the Pope; but he himself desired 
to see the military and judicial authority in the hands of 
Charlemagne, as “ Patricius,’ and provided for the Roman 
people taking an oath of obedience and fidelity to the 
king. 

By Charlemagne’s taking upon himself the imperial dig- 
nity, and founding or re-establishing a Western Empire, the 


“1. Romagna—comprising four provinces, Bologna, Ferrara, Forli, 
and Ravenna. 

‘*2. Le Marche—comprising six provinces, Urbino and Pesaro, Mace- 
rata with Loreto, Ancona, Fermo, Ascoli, and Camerino. 

‘*3. Umbria—comprising three provinces, Perugia, Spoleto, and Rieti. 

‘*4. Marittima e Campagna—comprising three provinces, Velletri, 
Frosinone, and Benevento.”—‘ Despatches from Mr. Lyons respecting the 
condition and administration of the Papal States.” London, 1860, p. 11. 

? Vest, ‘Storia di Romagna,” i. 394. 

2 “ Cod. Carol. 67, ap. Cenni Monum, 81,” p. 439. 


IMPERIAL AND PAPAL AUTHORITY. 339 


temporal power of the Pope became both more distinctly 
marked and more secure. 

The shadow of a Byzantine supreme authority had now 
disappeared. Rome belonged to the Western Empire, and 
the Pope and the Romans took an oath of fealty to the Em- 
peror. As the Emperor was to be, beyond all other things, 
the protector of the Church, and as the temporal possessions 
of the Pope now stood specially under the imperial guardian- 
ship, so were they also under the imperial authority. The 
limits between the Imperial and Papal authority were never 
very exactly drawn. The kingdom of Italy, which was held 
by Pepin, the son of Charles, was composed of the former 
Longobard territories in Northern and Middle Italy. In 
Rome and the Roman territories, the imperial supreme au- 
thority was exercised by envoysor messengers—“ Missi.” Since 
these formed a superior class of officers to those who were 
appointed by the Pope, the officers named by him in the 
towns under his rule were called “duces”—and as the imperial 
officers had superintendence over them, the Emperor Lo- 
thair, in the year 824, decreed that these “missi” should be no- 
minated jointly by the Pope and the Emperor; and that 
every neglect of the Papal officers, the duces and judices, should 
in the first instance be reported to the Pope. Both powers, 
the Papal and the Imperial, mutually supported each other. 
The Pope let the Roman people swear fidelity to the Em- 
peror; and the Emperor—as Lothair did—threatened every- 
one with his displeasure who should not in all things render 
obedience to the Pope. Official documents were dated ac- 
cording to the years of the Emperor’s reign, and the Roman 
coins were impressed with his image. The election of the 
Pope, which was made by the great persons at Rome—eccle- 
siastics and laymen— was to be subjected to the confirmation 
of the Emperor: this was positively settled, and was in it- 
self established as a guarantee for the freedom and regularity 
of the election—but the distance of the Emperor from Rome, 
the long delay, and the interests of the Roman parties, led 
to this arrangement being frequently unattended to. 

The state of affairs, so regulated, and so favourable to the 

Z2 


340 DEGRADATION OF THE PAPACY. 


Papal See, was not of long duration. The Carolingian house 
and its power went to destruction through internal discord, 
fratricidal wars, and constant territorial partitions, without 
there being any strong dynasty to fill its place. The splen- 
dour of the Empire grew pale, and in the person of Louis 
II. it was limited to Italy, whilst he no longer possessed the 
power of protecting Rome and the peninsula against the in- 
cursions of the Saracens from the South. And when, on 
the death of the childless Louis, the territorial empire came 
to an end, and the Popes, by the act of coronation, decided 
as to who was to be possessor of the Imperial dignity, without 
consideration as to the order of succession, an extremely impor- 
tant step was taken for the elevation of the Papal authority. 
Neither the Italians nor the Pope obtained any substantial 
benefit from enfeebled imperial shadows. The defenceless 
Pope could not prevent his cities being torn away from him 
and the-Romish Church by Italian princes. And worse still 
were the proceedings adopted on the part of his Roman 
nobles, who, no longer restrained by the strong hand of an 
Emperor, took upon themselves the power of electing an oc- 
cupant for the chair of St. Peter—and often filled it with 
their own tools, and made use of it for their own purposes. 

Thus began, with the close of the ninth century, that dark 
anarchical age when the Papacy was degraded and maltreated 
by powerful laymen. The Roman clergy of the time were 
destitute of a firm organization, and proved utterly power- 
less when opposed to the nobles. The Popes succeeded each 
other rapidly. They were elevated by one faction, over- 
thrown by another, imprisoned and murdered. ~The Romans 
did at that period all they possibly could utterly to destroy 
the Papacy, but the moral strength of the institution was 
invincible. Of the Papal States which had been created by 
preceding Popes and Emperors, there were now only frag- 
ments remaining. The towns of the Romagna were obliged, 
when the invasions of the Hungarians commenced, to do un- 
aided all they could to defend themselves. 

In Rome there ruled, after an intriguing woman, Marozia, 
her son Alberic, and he, through his family influence, his 


DEPENDENT CONDITION OF THE POPES. 341 


riches, and by holding possession of the castle of St. Angelo, 
exercised, as “ Prince and Senator of all in Rome,” unlimited 
power until the year 954. The Exarchate and Pentapolis 
were in the power of Berenger, King of Italy. Alberic 
must, however, himself have felt that a temporal Princedom 
of Rome could not be of long duration, and he therefore se- 
cured thé election to the Papal dignity for his young son and 
heir, Octavius. Thus had Rome, in the person of Octavius, 
or John XIL., a spiritual prince; but the Church a good-for- 
nothing Pope. 

Then appeared—and invoked by the Pope himself—the 
German King, Otho the Saxon, who became the second 
restorer of a Western Empire, which empire was now 
transferred to the German nation. He from that time forth 
exercised, both in Rome and with regard to the Pope, his 
imperial rights to their widest extent. He caused John XII. 
to be deposed by a Synod, and Leo VIII. to be elected in 
his place; and when the Romans once more endeavoured to 
get possession of the Papal chair, by the election of Bene- 
dict V., he had him deposed and sent into exile in Germany. 
As to a real free election of a Pope, there was not a thought 
or talk about it, neither all this time nor during the whole of 
the following century. In Rome as well as out of Rome 
there was naught on which the Pope could rest for support. 
Without the Emperor he was a mere ball tossed about by 
the hands of the audacious nobility factions. Emperors, 
acting under the advice of their bishops and spiritual coun- 
cillors, had given more worthy Popes to the Church than 
the Roman chiefs, for whose selection there was no motive 
‘beyond the gratification of their own ambition; and they 
sometimes preferred the most unworthy candidate, because 
they hoped to find in such a more pliant tool. 

Immediately after the death of Otho I. the disorders of 
the factious nobles again burst forth. Two parties, the 
Sabini and the Tusculani, struggled for power; the Popes were 
elevated sometimes by the one, and sometimes by the other 
party ; but, after a brief period of time, were deposed again, 
and ended their days in dungeons, or were murdered. It 


- 


342 GERMAN POPES. 


was not until Otho III. appointed his cousin, Bruno, and 
afterwards the celebrated Gerbert, as Popes, and: protected 
them by an armed force, that the Papacy could once more 
obtain and exercise its influence and authority in ecclesias- 
tical affairs. 

After the early death of Gerbert, or Sylvester II., the 
House of the Tusculani, probably descendants from that 
Alberic who had formerly been the master. and ruler of 
Rome, gained possession of power in the city, and also over. 
the Papal See. A Pope of this house, Benedict VIII. (whose 
reign, although it only lasted for twelve years, had been the 
longest of any of the Popes for two centuries), could, when 
borne up by his family power, and strongly supported by the 
Emperor Henry II., command as master in Rome, and 
also exercise his: power and authority in the affairs of the 
Universal Church. But his pontificate likewise served to 
secure power in his own family; for after his death there 
succeeded two Popes of the same house—his brother, John 
XIX., and his nephew, Benedict IX. But the crimes of 
the latter became intolerable. The evils of dissension were 
added to the disgrace and degradation of the Church, and 
then Germany at last came forward with thorough and en- 
during aid. The strong arm of Henry III., and the series of 
German Popes he gave to the Church, purified and elevated 
the stained and degraded Roman See. The reformation of 
the clergy, which had become a matter of urgent necessity, 
and for which the congregation of Clugny had been making 
a prefatory preparation, could only now be commenced. 

The greater portion of the Papal States had, during the 
whole of this period (that is, from the year 800 until 1050 or 
1060) fallen into the hands of laymen. Ravenna, and its 
territory, and the towns of the Pentapolis, had become the 
Emperor’s. In Sabinum and Preneste there was a branch 
of the house of the Crescenti.' Southern Tuscany, with 
Spoleto and Camerino, was held by Ugo the Great, Duke of 
Etruria, but destined soon to fall into the grasp of the 


1 See GrroreR’s “‘ Papst. Gregorious VII.,” v. 597. 


DEED OF DONATION OF OTHO III. 343 


Emperor. The revenues of the Roman See consisted of rents 
paid by some holders of fiefs. 

Some light is thrown upon the state of things at the end 
of the tenth century, by the Deed of Donation of Otho IIL, 
of the year 999.1. The Emperor animadverts in sharp 
terms upon the carelessness and fatuity of former Popes (for 
they, as the impotent creatures of the Albani and Crescenti, 
had been in the current century intruded upon the Church), 
who (as the Pope himself said, for tributes of a very 
small amount) had frittered away almost the whole posses- 
sions of the Church, both in and outside of the city, and 
had, to replace them, taken what was imperial property. 
He, therefore, bestowed, for the maintenance of the Papal 
dignity, certain fiefs belonging to him—the eight countyships 
of Pesaro, Fano, Sinigaglia, Ancona, Fossombrone, Cagli, 
Aesi, and Osimo. In the following century these districts — 
were again lost, and had again to be won back. 

In the dispute with the Emperor, Henry III., Benevento 
was taken away from the Pope, Leo IX., who gained, how- 
ever, for the Papal See, that which was far more valuable 


1 T entertain no doubt about the authenticity of this so much (and still - 
in Wrttman’s ‘“ Jahrbiicher des deutschen Reichs,” ii. 2, pp. 233-43) 
disputed document (ap. Pertz, ‘‘ Mon.-Germ. IV.,” B. 162). I am. of 
this opinion with Muratori, Pertz, Giesebrecht, Gfrérer, Gregorovius, 
who also have decided on its authenticity, against Baronius and Pagi. 
Pope Sylvester himself complains in the feofment-diploma of. Terracina 
of the year 999, that the Papal property had been dissipated from the Roman 
See, “‘ Cum lucris operam darent et sub parvissimo censu maximas res 
ecclesize perderent” (‘‘ Ap. ConraTorE Hist. Terrocin.,” p.41),and the real - 
‘* Comitate” are mentioned in a letter of Otho’s to the Pope as ‘‘ qui sub 
lite sunt,” (‘‘ GERBERTI Epistolae,” p. 70). He has, says the Emperor, 
delivered them to the Marquis Ugo of Etruria, who also possesses the 
Countships of Spoleto and Camerino, out of love to the Pope, in order 
that the people may have a ruler, and the Pope may, through the same 
person, receive from the ‘‘ Comitate” fitting services and dues. The 
Popes neither could nor should directly rule over the territories bestowed 
on them, but might enjoy the revenues in gold, or natural productions, 
and have military aid, in case of war. Consequently the supreme im- 
perial authority over the territories given to the Pope must be main- 
tained. The grounds, for upholding the authority of the documents 
which Giescebrecht and Gfrorer have cited, might be still further enlarged. 


344 DEVELOPMENT OF SPIRITUAL POWER. 


than the possession of that territory—and that was, the vassal- 
ship of the Norman conqueror of Lower Italy. That which 
Leo IX. had commenced with the brothers Humphrey and 
Robert, was continued with Robert by Gregory VII., and 
completed by Innocent II., in the year 1139, with King 
Roger. For what was still withheld from them, and the 
loss of which Nicholas I. continued to complain of (namely, 
their rich patrimony in Lower Italy and Sicily), there was, 
however, one compensation left to the Popes, viz.: that 
they were recognised as the Suzerain lords of a mighty 
kingdom—that the princes of this kingdom did homage 
to them as vassals, and paid them tribute. Subsequently, 
indeed, it was precisely this very vassal kingdom that 
became the cause of the Pope’s falling into a dependence 
upon France, and that led to the episode at Avignon, and, 
through it, to the great schism, the consequences whereof 
remain to this day unfathomable. 

In the long struggle concerning Investitures, the spiritual 
power of the Papacy developed itself in all its greatness, 
whilst the material basis of the temporal position upon which 
the Popes were placed was weak and insecure. Gregory 
VII. at first ruled in Rome with a firm hand; but after a 
few years there sprang up an imperial party amongst the 
populace, and its constantly increasing strength induced 
Gregory to unite with the Normans in Lower Italy. The 
same party drove his successor, Victor III., out of the city, 
and compelled Urban II. to seek refuge for some time in 
France. The districts lately bestowed upon the Church, as 
a portion of its estates, were then, for the most part, in the 
hands of imperial feudatories—of such persons as that 
Werner, or Guarnieri, who describes himself, in writing, as 
“By God’s grace, Duke and Marquis of the Marche of 
Ancona, and enlarged by the marquesates of Camerino and 
Fermo.”! d 

1 Peruzzi, “‘ Storia d’Ancona,”i. 280. [‘‘ E perciocché egli s’ intitola, 
ed @ intitolato ‘ Guarnerius Dei gratia Dux et Marchio,’ se ne pud in- 
ferire, che non la sola Marca d’Ancona, ma anche il Ducato di Spoleto, 


fossero a lui sottoposti."—Murarori, ‘‘ Annali d'Italia,” a. 1016. 
Monaco, 1762, vol. vi., p. 350.] 


ROME IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY. 345 


Urban II., one of the most powerful Popes out of Rome, 
was, in Rome itself, absolutely powerless ; and, being robbed 
of his revenues, was, for a long time, living upon alms. His 
successors, Paschalis IJ. and Gelasius II., were several 
times compelled to abandon Rome, on account of the pre- 
dominant sway of the noble families. The two mightiest 
houses now in Rome were the families of the Frangipani, 
and of Peter Leoni; and it was only when these two 
factions were at variance that the Popes could, by adhering 
to one of them as a support, maintain anything like an 
independent position in Rome. One of these families—(it 
was by the elevation of a son of Peter Leoni’s, under the 
name of Anacletus IJ.)—plunged the whole Church into a 
long and lasting schism. Some years afterwards, in 1143, 
the Roman people revolted, appointed from amongst them- 
selves a senate, independent of the Pope, and a municipal 
chief, with the title of “ Patricius;” and Lucius IL., in the 
attempt to make himself master of the city, met with a violent 
death.} 

The Emperor, Frederick I., forced the Romans, who 
then, under the influence of Arnold of Brescia, were 
dreaming of a restoration of the ancient republic, to deliver 
up all the regalia into the hands of Pope Eugenius IIL; 
and he who did this was—of all the Emperors since 
Charles the Great—the most determined opponent and 
champion against an independent Papacy, as well as of 
ecclesiastical states, as a basis on which it might be main- 
tained. And thus had the Popes, during the whole of the 
twelfth century, no fixed settled territory of their own in 
Italy. They were never able to maintain themselves in 
Rome, but for a short and transitory time; and outside of 
Rome there was not one town of importance on which they 


1 [The character of the Romans in the twelfth century is accurately 
described by Muratori in a few lines, when referring to an incident in 
the life of Gelasius II. ‘ Egli (the Pope) non si potea fidar de’ Romani, 
gente venale in que’ tempi, e tante volte provati da’ suoi predecessori e 
da lui stesso per poco fedeli.”—‘‘ Annali d'Italia,” a. 1118. Monaco, 
1762, vol. vi., p. 390.] 


346 INNOCENT III. 


could with security calculate; and hence it is that we see 
them so frequently turning towards France for a prolonged 
residence. After Urban II., this was done by Paschalis IL., 
Gelasius II., Calistus II., Innocent II., Eugenius III., and 
Alexander III. After the death of the last-named Pope, 
Lucius III., and Urban IIL., preferred remaining in Verona, 
because the Romans would not submit to them. ‘The gift of 
the illustrious Countess Matilda had afforded to the Popes 
a grand prospect of the secure possession of an extensive 
territory. Had the terms of this donation been literally 
complied with, the Popes would have at once become the 
greatest landed princes in Upper and Middle Italy. Liguria. 
and Etruria, say contemporaries, were included in the 
donation; but as the imperial fief could not possibly be 
separated from the allodial property, the- Emperor seized 
upon, and, under the pretext of relationship, laid claim to, 
and escheated the whole inheritance. The Popes were 
compelled to let this be done by Henry V. The Emperor 
Lothair, however, recognised their right so far as to submit, 
with Duke Henry of Bavaria, in the year 1133, to accept 
an endowment of the allodium of the Countess, from 
Innocent II. ; -in consequence of which, in the year 1135, a 
Marquis of Etruria, named Engelbert, having received a 
portion of this property from the Emperor, made an oath of 
fealty to the Pope, on account of the Matilda-endowment. 
The recurrence of the Estates to the Papal See, after the 
death of Henry, was, meanwhile, vainly sought and 
stipulated for. The Emperor, Frederick I., and his son, 
Henry VL., held fast by the inheritance, until Innocent IIL, 
at. the proper moment of time, asserted, with his customary 
active vigilance, the right of his See; and thus, at last, the 
so-named “ patrimony of St. Peter,’ namely, Southern Tus- 
cany—out of the inheritance bequeathed by Matilda—really 
came into the possession of the See of Rome. 

Innocent III. (1198—1216) was not so much the restorer, 
as he was, practically, the first actual founder of the Papal 
States; for, previous to him, no Pope can be named who 
actually reigned over a large territory. Previously, the 


FOUNDATION OF THE PAPAL STATES. 347 


Popes had possessions from which they received taxes and 
feudal services, but not a single state that they governed. 
When he (Innocent), in the year 1198, entered into his 
Pontificate, all (belonging to the Church) was in the hands 
of strangers. The Swabian knight, Conrad, was Duke of 
Spoleto. In the Campagna, Henry VI. had distributed 
fiefs amongst his military followers. In Ravenna, the Marche 
and Romandiole, the Seneschal of the Empire, Markwald, 
was in command; and in the Exarchate and Pentapolis, 
the cities (once the great commercial movement had 
extended over the whole of Upper and Middle Italy) had 
developed themselves as municipal Republics. The cities 
had well understood how to turn to their own advantage the 
dispute between the Emperor and the Pope, and, as Macchia- 
velli says, had employed the imperial power against the 
Pope, and then made use of the latter to obtain freedom, 
self-government, the right of election, and the yearly change 
of their chief magistrates, consuls, or podestas. 

Even in his first year Innocent had brought under sub- 
mission the important cities of the Marquesates of Camerino 
and Fermo, and of the Duchy of Spoleto; and then Perugia, 
Montefiascone, Radicofani, and Aquapendente, along with 
the Countship of Benevento. The cities of the Romagna 
speedily recognised the supreme authority of the Church— 
an authority so mildly exercised that they could scarcely 
perceive it.! The freedom and full autonomy of the cities 
were granted. Thus Innocent, in 1198, declared Perugia 
to be a property of the Roman See; but he then also con- 
firmed the constitution of the city, its government by consuls, 
and the free use of the laws which the citizens had made for 
themselves.? In this respect the Popes gave more than the 
Emperor. The cities had only to pay a small yearly tribute, 
and, in case of necessity, to furnish men-at-arms; and even 
this was not usual, for it was remarked of Viterbo, that, 


1 Vest, ‘‘ Storia di Romagna,” ii. 224. 
? See introduction to the Chronicle of Perugia in ‘t Archivio-Stor.,” 
vol. xvi., I., p. xxii., and Lynocentu, “ Epistole,” i. 375, 426. 


348 _ CONFLICT WITH THE EMPEROR. 


before the fifteenth century, it had to pay nothing.' It was 
in Rome itself that the Pope had the toughest resistance 
to overcome, and he was sometimes obliged to quit the city, 
until at last he was able to induce the Romans to leave to 
him the nomination of the Chief Captain of the municipality, 
who was also now called “ Senator.” 

In the desperate conflict with the too powerful Frederick 
II. the most of that which had been won by the Popes was 
again lost; and then, after the death of the Emperor and 
the downfall of his son Manfred, its gradual restoration had 
to be sought for. An injurious effect of the quarrel between 
the Emperor and Pope was the formation of the Guelph 
and Ghibelline parties, which penetrated into all the cities, 
and continued to abide in them. The Church-friends, the 
Guelphs, were everywhere the democratic party; whilst the in- 
terests of the nobles, as a class, in the success of the Imperialist 
Ghibellines, won for them consideration and power. Where 
the latter gained the upper hand the supreme authority of 
the Papal See could not be, even nominally, maintained ; 
and as to the Guelphs, they also, whenever they could, 
wished themselves to govern, and to wage war and make 
peace, according to their own will and ‘pleasure. The 
Popes (with all the splendour of appearance which could be 
afforded by the victories of the Guelphs in a great part of 
Italy, and beyond the limits of the Church States), were still 
in such a position that no city was really subject to them, 
and they were often in embarrassment as to where they 
should take up their abode. Thus Clement IV., in one of 
his writings of the year 1265, says that, after he had conse- 
erated a church in Assissi, he would go again to Perugia, 
since he could not procure a dwelling-place anywhere else; 
because the other cities of his Patrimony were entangled in 
feuds, or had not a sufficiency of provisions.? If he wished 
to make a city a permanent residence, he must have first 
entered into an agreement with the municipality, by which 
the Roman Court should retain a free, unhindered movement 


? Busst, ‘‘ Istoria di Viterbo,” p. 47. 
2“ Bullarium Franciscanum,” ed. Sbaralea, iv. 29. 


RESTRICTION OF PAPAL AUTHORITY. 349 


within its own sphere of action; and it must also have been 
promised that the city would choose only for their consuls 
and podestas men who were faithful to the Roman See; and 
also that they would not impede the Papal Marshal in the 
exercise of his judicial office over the personality of the 
court.! 

Thus nearly all supreme sovereign rights had passed away- 
to cities, or to individual noble families—a part of them also 
became vested in bishops and monasteries; and the Papal 
authority in temporal affairs became little more than a supre- 
macy of dignity over a number of municipal republics, and of 
noble and princely signories.? The sovereign authority of 
the Pope was restricted to the exercise of a judicial power, 
that was, upon the whole, very much limited to the disposal 
of the pecuniary means and troops which well-disposed 
cities and dynasties furnished, and to acts of arbitration. The 
wonted method by ban and interdict no longer operated 
with an unerring effect upon Guelph cities, and far less 
upon Ghibelline. Rome, where the Savellis, Crsinis, and 
Colonnas now preponderated, was, as usual, a restless city, 
always suspicious and on the watch against the strengthen- 
ing of the Papal Government, and ever inclined towards the 
Imperialists and Ghibellines.* They were so, partly out of 
opposition to the Pope, and partly because of the theory then 
prevalent over all Italy: viz., that it was the people and the 
city who were the real heirs and possessors of the Imperial 
dignity and pre-eminence ;* so that the Pope could only in 


1 Such are the terms of the treaty that was made in the year 1278, 
in the name of Nicholas III., with the town of Viterbo. See Marrnt, 
** Degli Archiatri Pontificij.” Rome, 1783, ii. 11. 

2 Cantu, “ Storia degli Italiani,” iv. 11; Lro’s “‘ Geschichte der itali- 
ainischen Staaten,” iv. 423. 

+“ Populus urbis (Rome), qui naturaliter imperialis existit.”— 
Sasa Marasprna, Ap. Murator, §.S.  Ital., vii. 842. 

* This was not merely a Ghibelline notion, as Dante describes it in his 
‘** Monarchia,” but it was also that of the Guelphs, as Matteo Villani re- 
presents it, lib. iv., c. 77, and lib. v., c. 1, prologo, when he says, 
amongst other things: ‘ L’ autorita del popolo Romano creava gli im- 
peradori: e questo medesimo popolo, non da sé, ma la chiesa per lui, in 


350 ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE OF ANJOU. 


the name and by the authority of the Roman people transfer 
the election of an Emperor to the princes of Germany. 

Rudolph of Hapsburg had in his interview with Pope 
Gregory X., at Lausanne, in 1274, solemnly granted and 
confirmed to him the full possession of the Papal State terri- 
tories, according to the then existing designation—the land 
of Radicofani to Ceperano, the Exarchate of Ravenna, the 
Pentapolis, the Marche of Ancona, the Duchy of Spoleto, the 
country of the Countess Matilda, and the Countship of Berti- 
noro. Even Corsica and Sardinia were included in this grant.’ 
At the same time was abandoned the appointment of an 
Imperial Count, or Vicar of the Empire, who had hitherto, 
in the exercise of an imperialist jurisdiction, restricted very 
much the Papal power in the Romagna, the Pentapolis, the 
Marche, and Spoleto. In the year 1278, Rudolph actually 
sent a special envoy to Pope Nicholas III., for the purpose 
of having recalled and declared null and void the oath which 
his chancellors had caused to be sworn by the cities of 
Bologna, Imola, Faenza, Forli, Cesena, Ravenna, Rimini, and 
Urbino.? 

The appointment and elevation of the House of Anjou 
to the Sicilian throne was a momentous turning-point 
in history; for by it was transformed the condition of 
Italy, the character of the Guelph party, and, beyond all 
other things, the position of the Papal See. The Guelphs 
ceased to be a national party, a party opposed to foreign 
domination ; a party essentially devoted to the Church. 
They became Angiovini, accessible thereby to French influence, 
and subservient to French interests. The Popes lost the 
leadership of the Guelph party, which had passed over to the 
Anjous, and to other princes of the royal family of France; 


certo sussidio de’ fedeli cristiani, concedette l’elezione degli imperadori a 
sette principi della Magna.” From this it further was concluded, ‘‘ That 
the Tuscans were originally Latins, that is, Romans, and so were not 
subjected to the sway of the Emperor, and naturally still less to that of 
the Romans.”—See ‘‘ Storia Fiorentina di Pietro Boninsegni,” p. 487. 

1 Pertz, ‘ Mon. Ger.,” iv. 403, 404. 

? RAYNALD, ad a. 1278, § 51. 


THE REIGN OF FRENCH POPES. 351 


and so arose that bastard Guelphdom which Dante so much 
hated. Through it was the vast importance of the Empire 
to Italy, to the Pope and the States of the Church, attacked 
at its very roots, and by it was the imperial action in the 
Peninsula crippled. French cardinals, French popes (Clem- 
ent [V., Urban IV., and, chiefest, Martin IV.), did what they 
could to strengthen the influence of their nation, and of its 
two dynasties, the Capets and the Angiovines, in the Penin- 
sula. Martin IV. appointed Frenchmen attached to the 
suite of Charles of Anjou to be governors in provinces of 
the Papal States; he subjugated, with the hired arms of 
Frenchmen, the Ghibelline Forli;! and he nominated Charles 
himself as “Senator of Rome.” The latter placed there his 
own officers, whilst the Popes seldom permitted themselves 
to be seen in Rome; and so much more did they prefer 
residing in Viterbo, Orvieto, or Anagni, that, when Innocent 
V., in the year 1276, said mass in St. Peter’s Church, he 
observed that it was the first time a Pope had done so in the 
same place for the space of thirty years.2 The relations of 
the Popes with the population of the Papal States, and 
especially of those who were French Popes, became more harsh, 
and more marked with rigid force. It becameso particularly © 
whilst the authority over the provinces lay in the hands of 
Charles of Anjou—far more than in those of the Pontiff. 
Gregory X., the wisest and noblest of the Popes of that age, 
had everywhere endeavoured to reconcile the Guelphs and 
the Ghibellines, and to amalgamate the two parties; but his 
successors, under the Anjou influence, turned away from the 
path he had pursued. The Ghibellines were driven to 
despair. Ban and interdict, employed as instruments of 
government, had become, from too frequent use, ineffective. 
The wars which the Popes had to carry on by means of 
foreign “condottieri,” and by giving high pay to foreign 
hirelings, multiplied fiscal burdens on the people; whilst the 
unproductiveness of the revenues derived from the States of 
the Church compelled the Popes to maintain their wars with 
2“ Chron. Pipini,” ap. Murat, ix. 720. 
2 “ Annal. Salisburg,” ap. Pertz, ‘‘ Mon. .G.,” xi. 801. 


352 § TRANSFERENCE OF THE COURT TO AVIGNON. 


the revenues of the Church, and by the imposition of new 
ecclesiastical tributes. In the first years of the fourteenth 
century there was already to be found some unknown states- 
man to make the following proposal—viz.: That the lands of 
the Pope should be given over to some powerful king in 
emphyteusis, under the obligation of leaving to the Pope the 
revenue derivable from them; and thus the Pope might | 
become the organizer and protector of the public peace, and 
no longer have occasion to wage wars, or to accumulate 
treasures.! 

The-French Popes believed they had discovered the means 
whereby they might, for a long time, be able to bring the 
Pontificate into’ French hands exclusively, and that was by 
naming Frenchmen as cardinals until they should become 
the majority. For them Rome and Italy were foreign coun- 
tries—they wished to live on their native soil; and so came 
the transference of the Court of Rome to Avignon, where it 
remained for seventy years. The States of the Church had 
now nigh lost all their importance. In Avignon they were 
treated and regarded as a distinct province, which need not 
be very closely looked after, and that might be governed 
through deputies. The influence of the Parisian Court was 
so powerful at Avignon, and in many cases it was so over- 
whelming, that the Pope did not appear to be master of one 
inch of ground in Italy. 

With the commencement of the fourteenth century had 
arrived the period of decay for the free States of Italy. 
These, with few exceptions, had, through civil strife, been 
changed into Principalities. This was the case, beyond all 
others, with those in the Romagna and the Marche, where 
the Polentas in Ravenna, the Malatestas in Rimini, the 
Manfredis in Faenza, the Ordelaffis in Forli, the Montefeltros 
in Urbino, and the Baranos in Camerino, had arrogated all 
power to themselves. The whole of the Papal States was 
broken up into fragments. In Rome and in the Campagna 
reigned anarchy and wild club-law—so that, to use the words 


1“ De recuperatione terrae sancte,” in the ‘‘ Gesta Dei per Francos.” 
— Bonears, ii. 324. 


UNIVERSAL REVOLT. 353 


of Villani, “strangers and pilgrims were as lambs in the 
midst of wolves, and everything became an object of plunder 
and a booty.” Then it was that the tribune, Cola Rienzo, 
his thoughts filled with images of the ancient Roman 
glories, succeeded in bringing back, for a short time, a transi- 
tory glimmer of a well-ordered republic, affording a guarantee 
for legal freedom. The rights of the Pope, as their only 
lawful lord, had, indeed, been constantly maintained by him. 
But, then, he neither knew how to rule nor to fight; and, 
although appointed Senator by the Pope, and sent back to 
Rome after his fall, he was soon ruined through his own 
vanity and indiscretion. Then it was that Cardinal Albornoz 
(1353—1368), who had been sent from Avignon, showed that 
he was equally great as a warrior and a statesman, and gra- 
dually freed the towns and territories of the Papal States 
from their tyrants. At the same time, he became, through 
“the Aegidian Constitutions,” which subsisted down to the 
latest time, the legislator and creator of public law in the 
Romagna. 

The arbitrary conduct and oppression of the French 
Legates soon provoked a universal revolt. Within nine 
days, in the year 1376, eighty towns and villages of the 
Papal States, excited by the Florentines, who were imbittered 
against Gregory XL, rose in insurrection, and either declared 
themselves to be free, or called back amongst them the 
tyrants who had been deposed by Albornoz. At that time, 
too, revolted Perugia—a city which had long jealously pre- 
served its freedom, even though its Guelph and well-disposed 
inhabitants called themselves “the people of the Church.” 
The city had only submitted to the Pope since 1370. After 
its revolt it was able to conclude a peace with the new Pope 
on its own conditions.! At that time grass was growing in 
the public streets of Rome, and the number of its inhabitants 
was only 17,000. 

The great revolt had enkindled a war which, according to 
the manners of the times, was carried on by a profuse appli- 
cation of ecclesiastical censures, combined with the employ- 

1 MariorTi, “‘ Memorie di Perugia,” 1806, p. 81. 
: AA 


354 DISRUPTION OF THE PAPAL STATES. 


ment of foreign, brutal, barbarous, and mercenary troops. 
And then broke out, after the death of Gregory XI. (who 
had lately come to Rome from Avignon), that momentous 
schism in the Church, the consequences of which are incal- 
culable, and the effects of which are felt to the present day. 
“A Roman or an Italian at least will we have!” exclaimed 
the people, before the windows of the Conclave. “ We, 
Frenchmen will not let escape from our grasp the prize of 
the Pontificate, with all that depends upon it,” thought in 
silence the French Cardinals; and, in opposition to the Italian 
’ Urban VI. elected that Cardinal Robert of Geneva, to whose 
hands was still adhering the blood of the luckless inhabitants 
of Cesena. With France, nationality was of more avail than 
the right and weal of the Church. The anti-Pope was 
recognised, and therewith the curse of schism was brought 
down upon the whole of Europe. The entire of Christendom 
and the Papal See, in their incapacity to help themselves 
and the Church, felt now the consequences of the Empire 
having dwindled into a shadow, and the office of “ Protector 
of the Church and the See of St. Peter” having become a 
mere empty title! 

The utter shattering of the Papal States into fragments 
was then at its acmé: the old leaders again reappeared ; 
republics were formed, or new rulers sprung up in many 
places; and then Urban’s successor, the money - needing 
Boniface IX., sold to the tyrants and republics, for im- 
mediate payment and a yearly tribute, the sovereign rights 
of which they were already in possession. 

When Martin V., at the termination of the schism, was 
elected as sole Pope, in 1418, and appeared in Italy, he 
found Rome and Benevento in the hands of the Neapolitans, 
a republic in Bologna, and the Romagna, with the Marche, and 
Umbria in the hands of different chiefs. Many places were 
won back, and again lost through new insurrections ; whilst 
several of the Princes recognized the Pope. The election of 
his successor, Eugenius LV., in the year 1431, was a decisive 
event for the future of the Papal States. He confirmed by 
oath a statute determined upon in Conclave—in accordance 


ARBITRARY POWER OF THE BARONS. 355 


with which all the Papal feudatories, vicars, and official per- 
sons in the Papal States should take the oath of fealty and 
allegiance, not to himself alone, but also to the College of 
Cardinals, to which, in cases of a Papal vacancy, the sove- 
reign authority of the country belonged. At the same time 
he bound himself to leave to the Cardinals the half of all the 
revenues he received; and he obtained, by this means, the 
sympathy and co-operation of the College in the exercise of 
all the more important rights of his sovereignty.!. This was 
a new constitutional law for the Papal States, and a very 
comprehensive limitation of the temporal power of the Pope 
was thereby created. It was, however, a matter that lasted 
but for a very short time. 

When the Spaniard Alphonzo Borgia, with the name of 
Callistus I{I., mounted the Papal throne in the year 1455, 
he found eight families of princes in possession of their fiefs— 
the Manfredis in Faenza and Imola, the Ordelaffis in Forli, 
Alexander Sforza in Pesaro, Domenico Malatesta in Cesena, 
Sigismondo Malatesti in Rimini, and Frederick of Monte- 
feltro in Urbino, the Baranos in Camerino, and the Estes in 
Ferrara. All the other chiefs had been previously set aside.” 
In Rome and the Campagna the Popes of this age, like their 
predecessors, were able to do very little. To the arbitrary 
power and mutual hostilities of the Barons, who still per- 
petuated a state of open, unbridled violence, and who had 
their relations and adherents amongst the Cardinals, the Popes 
had no armed power to control or oppose. And then came 
frequent and short Pontificates, whilst the constant inter- 
ruptions of the Conclave would permit no thorough and per- 
manent measure to be adopted. 

A centrifugal impulse, a tendency to fragmentation, to the 
formation of many petty sovereignties, had been, for a cen- 
tury and a half, so predominant in Italy, that now—at the 
close of the fifteenth century—the Popes themselves were 


1See RAYNALD, ad a. 1431. 

?See Rieut, ‘ Annali di Faenza,” 1840, ii. 204; ‘‘ Compendio della 
Storia d’Imola,” 1810, 241. Uaottn1, “Storia dei Conti e Duchi 
d@’Urbino.” Florence, 1859, i. 340, &c. 


AA 2 


356 RESTORATION OF THE PAPAL STATES. 


seized with it. First amongst them, Sixtus IV. made one of 
his nephews Lord of Imola and Forli, and another Prince of 
Sinigaglia and Mondovio. The statute of 1431, providing 
for the rights of the Cardinals, proved itself to be, in such 
cases, utterly inoperative. Then came Alexander VI., and 
his son Cesar Borgia, to overturn all the principalities in the 
States of the Church, with the single exception of the Duchy 
of Montefeltro. Even the powerful barons of Rome and of 
the Campagna were expelled. Alexander wished to make 
his son prince over a considerable patrimony—in fact, of one 
that would comprise the greater part of the Papal States. It 
was not to be accomplished. Julius II. took away from 
Borgia all that had been bestowed upon him. The work of 
restitution so commenced was persevered in. The Pope 
forced the Venetians to yield up to him those portions of the 
territory of the Romagna they had won in war; he struck 
down the dominion of the Bentivogli in Bologna, and of the 
Fredduccini in Fermo; and thus became—after Innocent III. 
and Albornoz—the third founder and restorer of the Papal 
States. It was as a warrior and conqueror that the grey-haired 
Pope won back Parma, Piacenza, and Reggio. .Not long 
before then, every puny chieftain with a couple of castles and 
a hamlet could set at defiance the temporal power of the 
Pope ; whilst now it excited the greatest respect, even from 
the mightiest States. 

A well-ordered and united government had never long 
existed in the territory of the Papal See; and now, as that 
which had been combined together, in consequence of the old 
disruptions, was only conjoined but loosely, or did not at all ad- 
here, so there sprang up, as suddenly as if they started out of 
the earth, several little chiefs and small tyrants. ‘This was the 
case especially in the Marches. With the exception of one 
or two, Leo X. drove out all these petty chiefs, or had them 
executed. He, being bent, above all things, upon the 
agerandisement of his house—the Medici—took the Duchy 
of Urbino from its Duke, Francesco Maria della Rovere, 
in order that he might bestow it on his nephew, Lorenzo de 


CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATE. 357 


Medici. After Leo’s death, however, Della Rovere again 
reconquered and regained his Duchy. 

Ever since the close of the fifteenth century there was a 
transition going on all over Europe, from the manners and 
circumstances of the medieval to those of modern times: 
the change was coming in some places with a slow, and in 
others at a speedy pace. And so too was it with the Papal 
States. There began now to be carried out two objects that 
were in accordance with the spirit of the age. ‘The first was 
an endeavour to draw more closely together the political 
bands, so as to make the whole State more uniform; and 
next to extend and exalt the Papal authority, even to the 
degree of its becoming an unlimited power. ‘This appeared 
so much the more necessary because the old, and now quite 
senseless, factions of the Guelphs and the Ghibellines were 
still maintained, especially amongst the country people, and 
led to the perpetration of numerous crimes and acts, of 
violence. Leo X. had, for the most part, confided the 
government to Florentines, his countrymen, who, princi- 
pally. for the sake of getting money, practised the greatest 
oppressions. The cities sent ambassadors, one after another, 
to make complaints. They did so in vain. At Rome they 
were far more intent upon taking away the freedom which 
many towns still possessed; and such an intention was 
carried into full effect at Ancona, by Clement VII.,! when 
he, by a sudden invasion and military occupation, got posses- 
sion of itin 1532. A similar purpose was accomplished by Paul 
III. in the year 1540, in Perugia, when the town, having re- 
volted on account of the raising the price of salt, was then 
compelled to submit, and lost all its rights and liberties.? In 
a similar manner had Ravenna, Faenza, and Jesi been pre- 
viously punished. Since the middle of the sixteenth century 
all had been completely subjected in the Papal States: cities 
and barons yielded an unconditional obedience. And yet 
the nepotism of some of the Popes led them, in harsh con- 
trast to the prevailing tendency of the times towards a con- 


1 Relazioni degli Ambasciatori Veneti,” vii. 55. 
2 MarrorrTi, pp. 113-160. 


358 PAPAL WEAKNESS AGAINST FOREIGN COURTS. 


solidation of the State, to its dismemberment. Thus Paul 
III. made his son, Luigi Farnese, Duke of Parma and 
Piacenza; and that territory has been lost irretrievably to 
the Roman See. Paul IV. despoiled the Colonna family of 
the Duchy of Palliano to bestow it upon his nephew, Caraffa, 
who was, soon after the death of his uncle, subjected to legal 
punishment by the late Pope’s successor, Paul IV. And 
herewith came to an end that species of nepotism which 
agerandised the kinsmen of a Pontiff at the expense of the 
Papal States. After having lasted from the reign of Sixtus 
IV. to that of Paul IV., then came Pius V., who prohibited, 
in the most emphatic manner, every endowment of what was 
a property belonging to the Roman Church, no matter under 
what title or pretence soever it might be made;' and he 
forewarned by excommunication all who should but advise 
its being done: and the law forbidding these, as well as every 
temporary alienation, he had subscribed by all the Cardinals. 
From this time there occurred two important events in the 
exterior history of the Papal States—the lapse of Ferrara, 
by the death of Duke Alphonso II., in the year 1596, and of 
the Duchy of Urbino, in the year 1631. 

With the eighteenth century came times in which the 
Popes had bitter experience of their weakness and helpless- 
ness, when opposed to foreign Courts—times in which the 
States of the Church, so far from aiding to serve the Papal 
independence, were, on the contrary, regarded and treated 
as the very means by which a Pope could be forced to adopt 
measures which otherwise he never would have assented to. 
The Bourbon Courts imitated the example of Henry V., 
who, by laying waste the Roman territory, forced Pope 
Paschalis II. to yield up to him the “ Investiture,” for the 
maintenance of which the Papacy had been for thirty years 
contending. One might have considered it as an impossibility 
that a Pope would have laid a liand upon the destruction of 
a Society, against which no substantial or proved accusation 
existed, and with the downfall of which (apart from other 
reasons) was involved the ruin of the mightiest and most 

1 Bulla “‘ Admonet nos,” 29. Mart., 1567. 


SPOLIATIONS OF THE BOURBONS. 358 


flourishing missions amongst the heathens, and at the same 
time the Church itself rendered the poorer by so many 
thousands of souls. But the Bourbon Courts knew well 
how to obtain what was apparently impossible. They caught 
hold of the Roman See by the Papal States. They seized 
upon Avignon and Venaissin, Benevento and Pontecarro, and 
threatened at the same time to take Castro and Ronciglioni.! 
And when they had tormented to death the steadfast Cle- 
ment XIII, they managed, through their adherents 
amongst the Cardinals, that the man who offered to be 
the accomplisher of their will should be placed in the chair 
of the Apostles. And when two Popes, one after the other, 
Pius VI. and Pius VIL, calmly abiding in their own coun- 
try, allowed themselves to be made prisoners by French 
authorities, to be dragged away to France, and to be thrown 
into prison, then, indeed, a comparison might well be insti- 
tuted between times past and present. An Alexander IIL, 
or an Innocent IV., would have passed over into Sicily, and 
there, unattainable by Gallic tyrants, they would, under 
English protection, have continued to govern the Church. 
Not so the two Piuses. Both were excellent, conscientious 
men; but they regarded the quality of a territorial prince 
more highly than that of the head of the Church. They 
would not forsake their dominions and their people; they 
preferred, like the Roman senators of old, to await the 
Gauls, seated in their chairs, and—the world knows how 
they were treated ! 

At the close of the eighteenth century happened a circum- 
stance, such as had not occurred during a thousand years. 
Pius VI., in the treaty of Tolentino, of 1797, had to resign 
to France not only Avignon and Venaissin, but also the 
three legations, Ravenna, Ferrara, and Romagna. For him 
remained Rome, the Patrimony, Umbria, and, he was per- 
mitted to hope, Ancona to be restored to him. It was, how- 
ever, easy to foresee that the remainder would scon be taken 
out of his hands. But Pius had recognized, as a matter 
of fact, that there were cases in which the Pope, although 


) THEINER’s ‘“ Geschichte Clemens XIV.,” i. 97. 


360 INTERNAL CONDITION. 


not the proprietor, but merely the depository or trustee 
of the Papal States, might nevertheless alienate a part of 
them—that is, where the actual mission of the State can, 
apart from the portion that has been alienated, be still car- 
ried on, 


INTERNAL CONDITION OF THE PAPAL STATES PREVIOUS 
To 1789. 


Macchiavelli’s remark, that “the Papal States stood in no 
need of any defence against external foes, because they were 
protected by religion,” is an observation that has, at subse- 
quent periods, been frequently repeated. There appeared to 
be a great advantage in the fact; for a country so situated 
could require no standing army, and no costly expenditure 
upon the maintenance of fortresses; whilst its inhabitants, 
feeling themselves in full possession of undisturbed security, 
might, free from peril, devote their lives to industrial pur- 
suits... From the time that Paul IV. had compelled King 
Philip of Spain formally to engage in a war, which was car- 
ried on with the greatest aversion by the latter, no portion of 
the Papal States had ever been intruded upon by an enemy, 
until Urban VIII., misled, like Paul 1V., by his nephews, 
brought on the unmeaning war of Castro, which, ending with 
a dishonourable peace, became, through increased taxation, 
by the accumulation of debts, by the impoverishment of the 
country, and by the hateful employment of spiritual com- 
bined with temporal weapons, a long-enduriug calamity for 
the Papacy and the country.” v 

A distinction has been drawn between two periods of 
nepotism—of what were called “the great” and “small” 
nepotisms. In the former, Popes wished to found large 
principalities for their families; in the latter, which began 


1“ Relaz, Venet.,” vii. 407. 

* Cardinel Sacchetti expresses himself in very strong terms upon these 
results in a letter addressed to Alexander VII. This document has been 
frequently reprinted. It is last published by Massrmo p’Azectio, “ La 
Politique et le droit Chrétien.” Paris, 1860, p. 165. 


NEPOTISM. 361 


with Gregory XIII., and the bull of Innocent XII., but 
ended with the death of Alexander VIII. (1691), the 
exertion made was to raise the Papal families by means of 
rich endowments, and by elevating them in rank to an 
equality with the first and noblest houses of the land. Thus 
the Buoncompagnis, through Gregory XIII, the Perettis 
through Sixtus V., the Aldobrandinis through Clement VIIL., 
the Borgheses through Paul V., and the Ludovisis through 
Gregory XV.; but the enrichment of the Barberinis, through 
Urban VIIL, surpassed everything that had previously occur- 
red. At the same time it frequently happened that a kinsman 
was, as “ Cardinal Padrone,” entrusted with the supreme reins 
of government. For a considerable time it was thought that 
a Cardinal’s nephew could not possibly be wanting in the 
Papal Courts. If a successor to the See called the nephews 
of the antecedent Government to account, and prosecuted 
them, the memory of the preceding Pope would become dis- 
honoured, and a wound inflicted upon the authority of the 
Pontificate. The Popes of the eighteenth and nineteenth 
century have, on the whole, kept themselves clear of these 
faults and gross abuses. Pius VI., with his Braschis, forms 
the only exception. Nepotism on the part of the Popes is 
now extinguished, and lives only in history. But it is other- 
wise with the nepotism of Cardinals and the “ Prelati.” 

Had the Statute of Eugenius LV. remained in force the 
College of Cardinals would have constituted a_ beneficial 
restraint in the affairs of the Government. Nepotism could 
not have become so injurious; whilst favoritism, and such 
deeds as those of a Camillo Astalli, Mascambruni, Don 
Mario, and a Coscia would have been prevented, or would 
have been rendered less pernicious. The country and its 
interests would also have had in the Cardinals authorised 
advocates and representatives. But that Statute had speedily 
become a mere dead letter. The Popes felt themselves to be, 
and acted as, completely absolute rulers. And even when 
Paul IV. announced to the Cardinals his spoliation of the 
Colonnas for the benefit of his nephew, and the war in which 
he had engaged against Spain and the Emperor, they listened 


362 FREEDOM OF THE CITIES. 


to him with downcast eyes, but did not venture to say a 
word in opposition to his proposed policy. Since then the 
College has remained completely passive as a corporation. It 
serves merely to listen to Allocutions upon momentous 
events, and to be witnesses to the publication of treaties and 
important arrangements, to undertake the election of the 
Popes, and to represent the supreme power during the 
vacancies of the Papal chair. The newly elected Pope 
enters at the instant into the full enjoyment of a sove- 
reignty, the boundlessness of which has not its like in 
all Europe. Paruta describes, in the year 1595, the relations 
between the Pope and the Cardinals: “Since Pius II.,” he 
says, “the authority of the Cardinals has been so depressed, 
that the Popes have attracted all to themselves. At present 
particular affairs are laid before the College only in the form 
of a promulgation, and not to ask its advice; and if, in rare 
cases, the Pope should ever desire their counsel, or rather 
appear to desire it, they confine themselves merely to the 
laudation of whatever has been proposed by the Pope.”! 

In the beginning of the sixteenth century, and under 
Julius II. especially, the cities enjoyed great freedom. The 
Pope was desirous, says Guicciardini, of acting in such a 
manner as to inspire the people with an attachment to 
churchmen; so that at Bologna, when taking the oath of 
allegiance, upon its passing over to the Papal Government, 
it was regarded as a transition from the servitude which 
hitherto had existed (under the Bentivoglios), into a state of 
_freedom, in which the citizens, in the peaceful possession of 
their native land, would be allowed to take part in its 
government as well as in its revenues.?, And a contemporary 
of Julius, Macchiavelli, describes it as a peculiarity of the 
Papal States, that the sovereign was not required either to 
defend or rule over his subjects; whilst they, on their side, 
had no desire to be ruled, yet never thought of separating 
from him.? 

In the course of the sixteenth century there was first 


1“ Relaz. Ven.,” x. 413. 
® Lib. vii.,'c. 1; lib. ix., 0. 5; * **]] Principe,” c. 11. 


STANDING CONGREGATIONS. 363 


formed an actual government of the State by ecclesiastics ; 
and at the same time the administration was centralized in 
Rome. Before 1550 there were laymen acting as chiefs in 
the administration. This at least very frequently happened 
in the Romagna. But it is remarkable that the cities them- 
selves often preferred “ Prelati” as temporal governors, and 
expressly desired to have them. Fermo, until the year 
1676, maintained its right to have a relative of the Popes for 
its governor; and afterwards in his place came a congrega- 
tion of Prelati merely for this district. Bologna maintained 
many privileges, and especially that of having a President of 
its own in Rome, who sometimes offered an active and per- 
severing resistance. Upon the whole, however, there was 
(at least since the end of the sixteenth century) no more of 
corporate or individual independence either in the cities or 
amongst the noble vassals. Of the city of Rome, it is said, 
by Cardinal de Luca, that it presented merely the shadow of 
a municipal government.! It is, however, admitted that some 
of the large cities were allowed to govern themselves in a 
tolerably independent manner, and that the lords of the soil 
had also, within their own territories, full power of 
action.” 

Sixtus V., who has been regarded as the chief founder of 
the modern system of the Papal Government, estab- 
lished the institution of Standing Congregations, which 
was well calculated for that time, when it was an 
object to raise a barrier against nepotism and favorit- 
ism, and to have an Institution which would possess both 
uniformity and stability in the management of the public 
business, and be able to restrain the worst excesses of arbi- 
trary authority. In connexion with this institution was 
developed “the Prelature”—the formation of a class of a 


1 “ Dottor Volgare,” lib. xv., c. 34. 

? The Venetian Relation of 1615 (‘‘ Cod. Ital.,” p. 358) remarks that 
in Rome there still remained the form of an independent municipal ad- 
ministration ; but that all these were things ‘“‘ che servono piuttosto per 
apparenza, che per assistenza di governo.” Its regulations were alto- 
gether dependent upon the will of the Pope. 


364 OPPRESSIVE NUMBER OF OFFICIALS. 


superior or higher order of officials in the Papal State. The 
commencement of this class is placed in the time of Gregory 
XIII. In the former periods ecclesiastical officials were 
named “Curiales.” In a closer view of this body, the 
“Prelature” might be regarded as “a noviciate”—a pre- 
liminary state of preparation, and a nursery for the occupa- 
tion of the higher offices in the State. Those who entered 
it had to prove they were possessed of an income of 1,500 
scudi—and thus all persons without means were excluded 
from this class, and the career which it opened to its 
members. 

A serious burden upon the country was the great number 
of Roman officials, whose places some of the Popes, when 
they found themselves in financial difficulties, had created 
merely for the purpose of selling them. The duties they had 
to discharge were insignificant, and some of them were 
merely. titles without any office whatsoever. The purchasers 
paid either a yearly contribution or a lump sum at once, and 
could also sell their appointments again. There was no fixed 
salary attached to these appointments; but the occupiers 
received the profits and fees of their offices. In the year 
1470 there were already 650 purchasable places. Afterwards 
Sixtus IV. created a whole College, merely to sell the 
places; and at a later period succeeding Popes, and Leo X- 
in particular, imitated this example, There were under 
Paul IV. so many as 3,500 such places. With reference to 
this matter persons tranquillised their conscience with the 
consideration that by such means were obviated the neces- 
sity of burdening the people with new taxes. It was, in 
fact, a system of disguised loans in the form of annuities. 
The consequences made themselves chiefly felt in matters 
affecting ecclesiastical jurisdiction, for the purchases had 
main reference to the produce of Departments interested in 
Benefices and Dispensations. And in the administration of 
the Papal States its effects were also felt, for the Government 
situations were also sometimes sold;! and the mere exist- 

1 Saracint, “‘ Notizie storiche della citts’ d’Ancona,” p. 335, mentions 


that the Governorship of Ancona was sold to Benedetto Accolti, for the 
yearly payment of 20,000 scudi. 


IMMUNITIES OF THE CLERGY. 365 


ence of a numerous class of officials who had purchased 
their appointments, and regarded them as articles of trade, 
could not but introduce at last a grovelling, griping spirit 
into the whole administration.! It was one of the merits of 
the excellent Innocent XII., that, in the year 1693, he 
abolished the selling of places, by restoring the purchase- 
money to the buyers.? But, assuredly, he could not do away 
with the consequences of a custom that had existed for more 
than two hundred years, and the results of which have been 
felt down to the most recent times. 

The ecclesiastics formed at Rome, in many different ways, 
a superior and privileged order, and such as cannot be found 
in any other country in the world. As clergy and laity were 
thus separated by a broad and deep chasm from one another, 
the laity were filled with jealousy against the clerical 
order, thus placed in a position so superior to their own, and 
defended on all sides by inviolable privileges; and the con- 
sequence was that the feeling of jealousy often became one 
of decided aversion. On the one side, it was frequently 
maintained in the sixteenth century that there prevailed 
amongst the people a decided dislike to a government by 
priests ;* and on the other side it was remarked by the cele- 
brated statesman and historian, Paolo Paruta (a seriously 
religious man), in the year 1595, that the preservation of the 
rights and immunities of the clergy was regarded as the first 
and most important of all affairs. He had, he says, fre- 
quently observed, and not without wonder and vexation, 
that even “Prelati,” leading very unspiritual lives, were 
highly esteemed and rewarded, if they but defended the pri- 
vileges of the ecclesiastical order against the laity ; and that 
it was sometimes made a matter of reproach to a “ Prelato” 

1 Muratort, “ Annali,” a. 1693, xvi. p. 237. Ed. Milan. 

2 “* Per la qual cosa si viene a riempire la corte d’ uomini mercenarii e 
mercanti . . . non avendo detti mercenarii d’offici involto l’animo 
che in cose meccaniche e basse. . . . si che tolta l’economia este- 
riore ogni altra cosa si reduce a deterioramento.” Thus writes the Vene- 
tian ambassador Grimani, under Clement 1X.—‘‘Tesori della corte 
Rom.,” p. 426. 

* “ Governo dei preti,” an expression since then frequently made use of. 


* 


366 A STRIKING CONTRAST. 


that he favoured the laity too much. It seemed, he says, as 
if the clergy and laity did not belong to one and the same 
flock, and were not included in the one Church.! 

It was further noticed that Popes were no longer taken 
from the regular clergy—(from Sixtus V., who died 1590, 
Benedict XILI., in 1724, was the first monk who sat in the 
Papal chair)—and that since government by nepotism had 
become customary, the regular clergy were seldom promoted 
or employed. All was in the hands of the secular clergy, 
and especially of those who did that which the regulars 
could not do—serve “the nephews”—or who appeared better 
adapted for office by their juridical studies.? 

A very striking contrast was presented between the spi- 
ritual and temporal government of the Popes. The first 
bore throughout the stamp of dignified stability, resting upon 
fixed rules and ancient traditions; whilst the government of 
the country was, on the contrary, a prey to continual changes 
of men, manners, and systems.’ In comparison with the 
reigns of worldly princes, the pontificates were short. On 
the average, the reign of a Pope did not last more than nine 
years.‘ It seldom happened that a new Pope continued in 


1 “* Relazioni Venete,” x. 375. 

? Grimani, who describes these circumstances, maintains, ‘‘ Nelle con- 
correnze un pretuccio ignorante e vizioso otterra il premio sopra il religioso 
dotto e dabbene,” and ascribes, amongst the injurious consequences of the 
system, the great want then felt of men of talent to occupy official posi- 
tions in the Papal States. With the cessation of nepotism (since Inno- 
cent XII.) circumstances in this respect must have improved. 

3’ The Relation (‘‘ Cod. Ital.,” p. 358), ‘della qualita’ e abusi della 
Corte di Roma,” f. 127, remarks, ‘‘ The constant changes in the Govern- 
ment astonish every one that comes to Rome, so much so, that some sup- 
pose the cause of it is to be found in the air, the climate, or the town 
itself.” The fact, however, is universally remarked. Thus it is spoken 
of in an instruction to the Spanish Ambassador at Rome in the seven- 
teenth century, and which is annexed to the work, ‘‘ La monarchia di 
Spagna crescente e calante,” 1699, p.7. ‘‘ Questa corte (the Roman 
Court) é variabilissima, e cosi bisogna, come il buon piloto, mutar le vele 
conforme al vento che soffia,” &c. See also Canru, “Storia degli 
Italiani,” v. 660. 

¢ Thus, for example, in two centuries (from 1589-1789) there were in 


CHANGE OF OFFICIALS, 367 


temporal affairs the system of his predecessors. He came to 
power under a lively impression of the discontents that had 
been aroused by certain evils of the previous administration, 
and was therefore so much the more inclined to produce a 
favourable impression for his own government by the adop- 
tion of opposite proceedings. Thus it has been remarked, 
with respect to the cultivation of the Roman Campagna, 
that every Pope followed a different system; and the conse- 
quence has been that in that which was the main point to be 
achieved nothing has been done. 

4 Beyond all other things to be remarked upon is the fact 
that persons were changed under every new Pope, which led 
to the most influential offices never remaining long in the, 
same hands— and thus were men gifted to be statesmen, and 
with an aptitude for business, either prevented from having 
time to acquire due knowledge and experience, or if they 
had acquired both, then they were not afforded the oppor- 
tunity of turning them to practical account. Paruta alludes 
to the great disadvantage which this custom brought along 
with it. The new Popes were usually distinguished for their 
piety or learning; but they were unpractised in affairs of 
State,! and therefore needed so much the more old and ex- 
perienced ministers, and a firm, permanent council. Instead 
of this, there appeared to be nothing more pressing for the 
new Popes to do than to fill the principal offices with their 
nephews, favourites, and fellow-countrymen.? Clement IX. 


France five Kings, in Germany nine Emperors, in Spain seven Kings ; 
but in Rome, twenty-three Popes. 

1It is remarkable that the recent practice should be so different on 
this point from what prevailed in the Middle Ages, and when the Papal 
election was free from foreign influences. In the eleventh, twelfth, and 
thirteenth centuries, persons were constantly elected as Popes who had 
already filled, under one or two preceding Popes, the most important 
offices in the Roman Church. On this ground were elected Gregory 
VII., Urban I., Gelasius IT., Lucius II., Alexander III., Gregory VIIL., 
Gregory IX., Alexander IV. The Cardinal-State-Secretary is now 
peculiarly ‘‘ the Government,” and yet it is regarded as a regular rule 
that he is never to attain to the Papal dignity. 

2 ** Relazioni Venete,” x. 420. 


368 MANAGEMENT OF THE FINANCES. 


was the first who, to the great vexation of his countrymen at 
Pistoja. departed from this custom; and, with the exception 
of a few high offices, retained in their position all those who 
had been appointed by his predecessor.! 

The management of the finances of the Popes, since the 
beginning of the sixteenth century, appears in an unfavour- 
able light, if we consider the figures and the expedients 
resorted to. Despite of the multiplied taxes, which were so 
much the more oppressive, as the prosperity of the population 
was by no means on the. increase,? the National Debt was 
continually increasing, whilst Popes, by the erection of the 
“ Monti,” as well as by the sale of offices, were adding to an 
alienation of the revenue. It was remarked that since 
Sixtus V. the Popes left nothing to their successors but 
debts.2 They had amounted, under Clement VIII. to 
12,242,620 scudi, or 17,751,799 rix dollars—that is, three- 
fourths of the entire revenues of the State were required 
for the payment of interest. Innocent X., in 1685, left a 
debt of 48,000,000 scudi. The motive for such a heavy 
burden on the State (apart from the two useless Italian wars, 
and what was squandered in nepotism and favouritism) was 
one well calculated to increase the renown of the Popes. 
They could not withdraw themselves from the obligation of 
supporting the Catholic powers in the religious struggles of 
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and especially from 
furnishing contributions in money, troops, and ships for the 
wars against the Turks. They had the task in Italy, in 
common with the Venetians, of serving as the bulwark of 
Christianity—a task that had been transmitted to them from 
their predecessors—and to maintain it against its hereditary 


1 Grant, “ Relaz. in den Tesori,” p. 417. 

2 Of Clement IX. it is remarked by Murarort (xvi. 92), ‘‘ He was 
continually thinking of the means whereby he might relieve his people of 
many of the taxes imposed upon them by his predecessors. He insti- 
tuted a congregation for that purpose, but it was found, on account of 
the State debts, to be an undertaking impossible to bring to a successful 
issue.” 

* GRIMANI, “ Relazione,” in the ‘‘Tesori della Corte Romana,” 1672, 
p. 429. 





DISCONTENT OF THE PEOPLE. 369 


enemy in the East. France, and the Poles, especially Hun- 
garians, the Imperial Court, and most frequently of all the 
Venetians, sought for and received large sums of money. 
All who were persecuted and despoiled in the south-eastern 
countries turned first to the Popes for aid, and regularly ob- 
tained from them generous assistance.! The burdens which the 
population had at that time to bear were imposed upon them 
as victims to the general weal of Christendom. But their 
sacrifices brought with them two evils. First, there was in 
the country no species of industrial pursuit in a thriving con- 
dition, and the cities, with few exceptions, remained small 
and poor: next, everything that was used came from abroad,? 
and thus the land, despite of the excellence of its natural 
productiveness, became constantly poorer. The administra- 
tion of finances was, as a matter of course, managed in secret, 
for there was not even a word said of a publication of the 
accounts; and as none but a Cardinal could be a Treasurer, 
he, by reason of the privileges of his position, was above all 
responsibility! The people felt the pressure of increasing 
taxation, and were continually becoming more dissatisfied with 
a “ Priest Government.” Their discontent must, in Paruta’s 
time (about the year 1595), have assumed a very serious 
aspect.3 The evil became still greater in the following cen-— 


1 RANKE (‘‘ Die rémische Piipste,” i. 422) says: ‘‘The Popes wished 
to govern their principality as if it was a large property, from which a 
portion of the rents should be applied for the benefit of their own 
families ; but the main part be especially allocated to the necessities of 
the Church.” What he says with reference to a care for their own 
families can only be applied to Pontifis before 1691, and, even then, is not 
applicable to them all. It is particularly not so to Clement IX., who 
might be called ‘‘ admirable,” if he had not been somewhat indolent and 
apathetic. 

? This is particularly dwelt upon in the Venetian Relation of the year 
1615 (in “ Cod. Ital.,” f. 45, of the Munich library), ‘“‘ Quasi tutte le 
cose, che si usano, sono portate da paesi forastieri,” &c. 

3“ Relaz. Ven.,” x. 396. Of the ‘‘ gravezza quasi insopportabile dell’ 
imposizion,” Tiepolo had already spoken about the year 1570 ; see RANKE, 
i. 421. In the year 1664, Cardinal Sacchetti again complains of ‘ il 
numero innumerabile delle gabelle,” &c. We learn from Pallavicini that 
the people ascribed the pressure of taxation to nepotism, the dotation 


BB 


370 DISORDERED STATE OF THE FINANCES. 


tury; and, even though we should regard as an exaggeration 
the assertion of Cardinal Sacchetti, that in the year 1664 
the population had been diminished by one-half, still it is 
positively true that numbers, to escape the burden of taxation, 
had emigrated. 

In the year 1670, the debt had increased to 52 million 
scudi, and absorbed even the dataria rent, which otherwise 
should, as usual, have been appropriated to the necessities of 
the Papal Court. Under Clement XII., the deficit was 
120,000 scudi. It was better at the time of the death of 
Benedict XIV., in the year 1758. The deficit had then 
been reduced by more than one-half, but the interest on the 
public debt swallowed up the half of the income. After 
this, the storm of the French Revolution burst over the 
Papal States; and then there was a Roman Republic, which, 
after the capture of Pius VI., dragged on for a few years a 
miserable existence; and with it came a state bankruptcy, 
which set aside the paper money created by Pius VI.! 

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the condition 
of the country is usually described in gloomy colours. The 
foreign ambassadors believed “ that, if a temporal monarch 
had the government of the Papal States, they might be 
raised to a high degree of prosperity, and even of wealth ;”? 
as all the conditions for attaining both were to be found in 
the soil and the population. The causes assigned, in expla- 
nation of the general decay, are very various. Above all 
things was, as a matter of course, the constantly disordered 
state of the finances, which was now, indeed, not merely 
ascribed to nepotism and favoritism, but the grounds for which 
were found to lie much broaderand deeper. To the drainage 
of money occasioned by the absence of domestic manufac- 
tures, there was to be added that which passed away into 
foreign countries, as payments upon the interest of the debt, 


and enrichment of Papal families—‘‘ Populus, qui pre multis vectigalibus 
humeris sibi ferre videbatur recentiores pontificias domos tot opibus 
onustas,” &c. In the MS. Life of Alexander VII. 

1 Coprt, ‘‘ Annali d'Italia,” iii. 219. 

2 So says the ** Venet. Relation” of 1615. 


LAWS CONCERNING TRADE. 371 


as the chief creditors were Genoese and Florentines. 
According to the remark of the President de Brosse,! pay- 
ments to the Church in Rome, that came from foreign 
countries, were never sent in cash, but in bills upon bankers, 
who immediately met with them the demands of the foreign 
creditors of the state. 

The laws concerning trade were so inconceivably perverse, 
that the suspicion was expressed that they had been 
purposely calculated for the suppression of skill, and the 
destruction of industry. As to the absurd duties levied in 
the interior of the country, they operated in the same 
direction. 

To these must be added the arbitrary proceedings with 
respect to the corn-trade, (the institute of the “ Annona,”’) 
and the introduction of monopolies in the most important 
necessaries of life: matters concerning which there had 
been long and frequent complaints.2 There was, too, a 


1“Te President de Brosse en Italie, lettres,” &c. Paris, 1858, ii. 
452, et seg. These letters were written in 1739 and 1740. 

? The author, ina subsequent passage, again refers to the baleful effects 
of the Roman “ Annona,” or Corn Law. Mr. Lyons, in a letter ad- 
dressed to the Marquis of Normanby, from Rome, July 30, 1856, makes 
some remarks on the same subject: ‘I have,” says Mr. Lyons, “ the 
honour to transmit to your Lordship two printed copies and a translation 
of an Edict published yesterday, by which the exportation, from these 
States, of corn of all kinds, is suspended until further orders. The second 
paragraph of the Edict, declaring that the circulation of corn within the 
State remains perfectly free, is supposed to have been occasioned by an 
absurd and mischievous Notification, issued, on the 22nd instant, on his 
own authority, by Monsignor Amici, the lately appointed Extraordinary 
Papal Commissioner for the four Legations, and Pro-Legate of Bologna. 
This Notification is couched in language more calculated to excite and to 
justify than to allay the popular irritation, and contains a number of 
minute and vexatious regulations, intended for the prevention or punish- 
ment of the imaginary offence of ‘ engrossing,’ or buying up large quan- 
tities of corn. The prejudices and ignorance of the mass of the people in 
these States on the subject of the corn trade may, perhaps, require to be 
treated with a gentle hand; but it might have been expected that the 
acts of a public functionary, in the high situation occupied by Monsignor 
Amici, would have been directed rather towards correcting them than 
towards fostering and sanctioning them. The Government at Rome has 


BB 2 


372 DEFECTIVE CHARACTER OF THE GOVERNMENT. 


complete absence of all representation of the interests of the 
people. An individual city might make its wishes and 
complaints known in Rome; but then anything analogous 
to a provincial representation in the Papal States, much more 
a representation of the whole country, was never even thought 
of.! 

The President de Brosse considered that the administra- 
tion of the Papal States (about the year 1740) was the 
most defective of any in all Europe, but, at the same time, 
the mildest. The mildness degenerated into weakness and 
negligence, and so contributed to the impoverishment of the 
country, by permitting all things to go to decay, in the hands 
of aged and infirm sovereigns. He likewise thought that the 
Pope would be one of the richest monarchs in Europe, if he 
raised as much money from his subjects as other sovereigns, 
and if his finances were tolerably well managed.2 Such was 
the opinion also entertained in Italy, with reference to the 
defective character of the Papal government. Becattini, in 
his eulogistic biography of Pius VI., confesses: “ That, with 
the exception of Turkey, the country beyond all others the 
worst governed was that of the Papal States. The.baleful 


disapproved Monsignor Amici’s Notification ; but his proceeding does not 
afford a favourable specimen of the enlightenment, or of the administra- 
tive capacity of the ecclesiastics selected for high civil employment. 
The practice adopted by the Papal Government of regulating 

the corn trade by successive temporary Edicts, issued according to the 
circumstances of the moment, has, in addition to its inherent evils, the 
great disadvantage, in these States, of giving rise to all kinds of suspicion 
against those in power. Every change is popularly attributed to direct 
corruption, or to a desire to favour the speculations of particular persons, 
supposed to be connected by ties of family or interest with men high in 
office. Whether these accusations are, in truth, founded or unfounded, 
there can be no doubt that they are believed in to an extent which 
materially injures the reputation and authority of the Government.”— 
‘* Despatches from Mr. Lyons respecting the Condition and Administra- 
tion of the Papal States.” London, 1860, pp. 26, 27. 

1“ Gegenwirtiger Zustand des piipstlichen Staats.” Helmstadt, 1792, 
p- 217. See the ‘ Riflessioni” of Cardinal Buoncompagni, in the year 
1780, partly translated in Le Bret’s *‘ Magazin,” ix. 452-527. 

2 “ Lettres familiéres,” ii. 452, 465. 


ABSOLUTE POWER OF THE POPES. 373 


annona, or corn-law, the tormenting and demoralising “ vic- 
tualling tribunals,” the want of manufactures, the increase of 
smuggling caused by the high duties on imports; the 
enrichment of state-farmers (farmers-general), to the great 
injury of the public treasury ; and the number of homicides: 
such were the circumstances pointed at as characteristics of 
the condition of the Papal States.!| And one is, in fact, in 
considering them, strongly reminded of the expressions of 
the old chancellor, Clarendon.?, The mildness of the Papal 
government has also been lately remarked upon by an 
Englishman very familiar with Italian history.® 

Strangers who have been in the country, and who have 
taken the trouble to acquire a knowledge of the manner in 
which its government has been carried on, have most gene- 
rally been at first astonished at the absence of all restraints 
upon, and then the omnipotence of, the sovereign. Thus 
speaks Grosley, who visited the Papal States about the year 
1760,‘ “The Papal is the most absolute of all the govern- 
ments in Europe. Of all the restrictions that are to be 
found in monarchical states, such as—fundamental laws of 
the realm, a coronation oath, regulations made by prede- 
cessors, national or provincial assemblies, powerful corpora- 
tions—of all these there is to be found not one in the Papal 
States.” One looks with wonder at an institution like to 
that of “the Uditore Santissimo,” which, in the name of the 
Pope, can interfere arbitrarily in the administration of 
justice, in every department, and can withdraw both suits 
and suitors from the jurisdiction of the regular judges ! 
Upon a closer examination it is, however, found that this 
absolute power is much modified by custom—by that, above 


1 Cantu, ‘‘ Storia degli Ital.,” vi. 126. 

2 “ He observes, that of all mankind none form so bad an estimate of 
human affairs as churchmen.”—Hatiam’s “ Constitutional History of 
England,” iii. 330. 

* “* Whatever objection there may be to the Papal sway, it cannot, in 
fairness, be regarded as otherwise than mild.”—DrENnisroun’s ‘* Memoirs 
of the Dukes of Urbino,” 1851, iii, 233. 

* “ Observations sur l’Italie.” Paris, 1774, ii. 329. 


374 THE POPE AND NAPOLEON I, 


which a Pope never, or scarcely ever places himself—that it 
is also modified by many considerations, and by the utmost 
possible forbearance towards persons; a forbearance that 
has become a principle of government—so that, in truth, 
this mild despotism is found to exist more in appearance, 
and in theory, than in fact, or practical life. 


THE PAPAL STATES FROM 1814 To 1846. 


When Napoleon I. despoiled Pope Pius VII. of the Papal 
States, his primary and principal motive for so doing was 
not because he desired to have possession of the country, 
but because he would not allow the Pope to be in that position 
of independence which the government of those states 
secured to His Holiness; and because the Emperor wanted 
to make of the Pope an instrument wherewith nations might 
be subjected to the imperial sway. Napoleon has acknow- 
ledged this. “I did not despair,” he says, “of obtaining by 
some means or other the guidance of the Pope for myself, 
and then—what an influence it would have been!”! He 
wished to establish the Papal Court at Paris—to make it a 
French and Imperial Institution, and by these means to get 
possession of the Papal influence over all Catholic popula- 
tions—and so be a ruler over their souls as well as their 
persons.” He did not succeed in this; for the Pope, although 
a captive, and, according to the captor’s own expressions, 
*“ gentle as a lamb, and an angel in goodness,” would neither 
be led, nor allow himself to be made use of. ‘The momentary 
weakness which the tortured, enslaved, and outwitted Pius 
had manifested in his signature to the Concordat of Fon- 
tainebleau, in the year 1813, with an implicit renunciation of 
his temporal powers, was very speedily repaired; and at the 
end of a few months he was able, as a steadfast sufferer, and 


1“ Mémorial de Ste. Héléne,” v. 326. 

2 « S’en servir comme un moyen social pour réprimer l’anarchie, consolider 
sa domination en Europe, accroitre la consideration de la France et l’in- 
fluence de Paris, objet de toutes ses pensées.”—‘* Mémorial de Ste. Héléne,” 
lic. 


PAPAL ADMINISTRATION. 375 


now peaceful victor, to return, and pass through the provin- 
ces of his restored dominions to his capital, amid the most 
sincere expressions of joy from the whole people—and from 
those, too, of the Romagnole, that had been so long separated 
from him. His return was a grand triumphal procession. 

The whole of the Papal States, such as he had never 
before possessed them, were transferred to him by the Treaty 
of Vienna; and, in the person of Consalvi, he had at his com- 
mand a statesman of rare endowments, to aid him in solving 
the difficult problem of re-establishing in part the traditional 
mode of Papal administration, instead of the French hitherto 
existing. 

That the form of the solution should have entangled the 
State and the Papacy in new and insoluble difficulties, or 
such difficulties as up to the present time never have been 
solved, was a fact that could only be subsequently learned by 
experience. 

In the preliminary observations to the “ Motu Proprio” of 
6th July, 1816, by which was regulated the government of 
the Papal States, Consalvi declared— “ That formerly an ag- 
gregate of various customs, laws, and'‘privileges had existed 
in the State; and that it was an advantage and a Divine 
dispensation, that—by the interruption of the papal reign, and 
during that interregnum—all those inequalities should be re- 
moved, and unity with uniformity introduced. For,” as he 
said, ‘a government was so much the more perfect the more 
it approached to a system of unity.” 

This statesman did not take into consideration that an ab- 
solute government can only be rendered endurable, and can 
alone be saved from sinking under the burden of its enor- 
mous responsibility, when it not merely tolerates and ac- 
knowledges a variously organized life, protected by custom 
and precedent, but also permits it to move freely within its 
subordinate sphere. His lauded unity and uniformity were 
destructive, and he also had to acquire by experience a 
knowledge of the fact that it is far easier to destroy than it is 
to construct or to create, in the management of public affairs, 
the spirit, strength, and vigour of a healthy existence. 


376 CONSALVI’S INSTITUTIONS. 


Thus, there was not a single one of the old municipal and 
provincial institutions re-established. The Gonfaloniere and 
the Anziani of the Communes, retained no more their indepen- 
dent positions; and even Rome and Bologna had but a sha- 
dow of municipal government. The local laws and statutes 
which, in sooth, granted very various, and, for the purposes 
of justice, very inconvenient privileges, as well as all the 
rights of the Communes, with exemptions and immunities, 
were abolished. Consalvi entered, therefore, willingly upon 
the inheritance which the Revolution had left to him as an 
incarnate Napoleonised government; and he was thankful to 
the latter, because it had prepared the way so energetically 
and unsparingly for his administration, and so completely 
smoothened a path for him—and yet, he in one respect de- 
parted completely from the French system, by again placing 
power in the hands of “ecclesiastics.” The Papal States were 
to be an absolute government by officials, in accordance with 
the French pattern, but then the highest orders of officialism 
were reserved for the “ Prelature.” This form of a clerical, 
omnipotent, bureaucratic, administering, governmental offi- 
cialism, was essentially a novelty, far and away different from 
the state of affairs in the olden time, and, above all, absolutely 
different from what existed during the Middle Ages. Now, 
the whole of the kingdom was divided into seventeen Dele- 
gations, or Legations, where a cardinal was placed at the 
head of affairs. The Delegati, corresponding in position with 
the French Prefects, must be members of the Prelature. 
They had to decide upon everything; and to assist them, they 
had merely a deliberative council, the members of which 
were nominated at Rome. To these Delegati belonged the 
appointment of the magistrates who carried on the govern- 
ment of the Communes, and amongst whom sat clergymen, 
who took precedence of the lay members. Below the Delegati 
were persons named Governatori, but having an inferior juris- 
diction. In Rome, the old supreme authorities were again 
re-established—the Congregazione della Consulta, del buon 
Governo, economica, dell’ Acque, degli Studii; and then the 
Camera Apostolica, endowed with the most heterogeneous at- 


COMPLICATED SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT. 377 


tributes, and divided into twenty-one subordinate depart- 
ments, or Circles, with a Cardinal Camerlingo (chamberlain) 
and Tesordere, or treasurer. To these were to be added fif- 
teen different courts of judicature. At the head of the Go- 
vernment, both spiritual and temporal, was placed the Car- 
dinal State-Secretary. The nursery-school from which the 
Government took its officials was from that class of Roman 
A bbates, who, with insufficient judicial and without any poli- 
tical economic knowledge, were better taught than educated, 
and might more fitly be entrusted with the arrangement of 
ecclesiastical ceremonies than with the management and in- 
terests of everyday life; but who, relying upon the favour 
and patronage of a Cardinal or “ Monsignore,” could win for 
themselves even in Rome but very little respect, and in the 
provinces were, for the most part, objects of the smallest love 
and regard. Of all the systems of government established 
in Kurope, the Roman was indisputably the most complicated 
—so much so, that in some cases a circumlocutory and time- 
wasting correspondence must be carried on preliminary to 
the ascertainment of the simple fact as to which one of the 
several authorities a matter should be submitted for its set- 
tlement. And by some of these authorities, meanwhile, 
would it be observed that it was only in accordance with its 
name and title that they could take any cognizance of it. 

And yet, some of the institutions of Consalvi proved 
themselves to be both judicious and beneficial; as, for in- 
stance, the Delegati placed by the side of the permanent go- 
verning Congregazioni, an imitation of the French Prefectoral 
Council. It was also generally recognized that the Tribunal 
of the Sacra Ruota was an admirable court of judicature, 
with an exemplary mode of legal procedure. 

In the German Ecclesiastical States the spiritual was 
separated from the temporal government; but in the Papal 
States they were intermingled with each other. This was 
declared to be an indispensable necessity. It was maintained 
that the double position of the Supreme Head must be re- 
peated and imitated amongst those of inferior rank.! There 

1 Ranxe, in hig “ Historisch-politischen Zeitschrift,” i. 682. 


378 FINANCIAL AFFAIRS. 


is as little of propriety in the fact, as there is of justice in the 
assertion. Because a king is at the head of the military de- 
fences of a country, as its commander-in-chief, and at the 
same time the head of the civil government, must it also 
necessarily follow that there should be the same combination 
of military and civil life amongst all the subordinates of his 
government? On the contrary, it is well known that in 
every properly-regulated State, the most complete separation 
of the civil from the military administration is maintained 
without the slightest difficulty. And so also could it be in 
the Papal States—the spiritual could be dissevered from the 
political, the ecclesiastical divided from the civil; and, de- 
spite the union of both in the one Head, they might very 
well be distributed amongst different members of the same 
nation. 

Financial affairs were found by Consalvi to be in a state 
of the most absolute ruin. They had been so of old; and 
their condition was to be traced to transactions in preceding 
centuries, to the robberies of the French, and the urgent 
necessities of the Napoleonic domination. In 1846, the de- 
ficit amounted to 1,200,000 scudi, or 1,740,000 rix dollars. 
At the same time the revenue had, in consequence of the 
French system of government, been nearly trebled. It was 
a matter of course that the taxes imposed by the French 
must be substantially maintained. 

The whole body of the French system of administering 
justice, in all its branches, with its modes of procedure, was 
put an end to by the Papal Delegate Rivarola, previous to 
the Pope’s arrival at Rome; and, at the same time, all pro- 
vincial statutes and peculiar municipal privileges of cities 
were abolished. The vacancy thus created was filled up by 
the Canon Law and Papal constitutions of the olden time— 
making altogether an incomprehensible, confused, and partly 
self-contradictory conglomeration of enactments. A calamitous 
confusion in all branches of the administration of justice was 
the immediate consequences of this change. And this con- 
fusion was increased by the rivalry of the Episcopal Courts, 
which drew before their bar every matter in which a clergy- 


AUSTRIAN DOMINATION. 379 


man was concerned. Then, too, were re-established the old 
tribunals of the Fabbrica di San Pietro for all religious legacies, 
and the Chericit di Camera for all matters connected with the 
domain lands. Then new codes were promised. Upon the 
whole, the power of ecclesiastics in temporal matters became 
infinitely greater than it ever had been before. So many 
barriers to it had been struck down; and, in addition, every- 
thing connected with education, and a very rigid censorship, 
(the last being most reluctantly endured by the higher classes, ) 
were vested in the hands of ecclesiastics ! 

And yet, notwithstanding all this, Consalvi was regarded 
by the numerous and powerful party of the Zelanti (the 
zealots), to which the majority of the Cardinals belonged, as 
a dangerous innovator !—so much so, that Cardinal Mattei, 
Dean of the College, and Prince of Velletri, caused a pro- 
clamation of the State-Secretary’s to be torn down in voret 
by his own bailiffs ! 

Italy was treated like Poland at the Congress of Vienna: 
it was regarded as “a geographical expression.” Nations, 
their wishes and their wants, were not there taken into con- 
sideration. Austria then dominated not only where her own 
interests and sympathies were involved, but her word of 
command influenced and controlled the other Italian States. 
Nought was to be conceded to the people, in the form of 
rights and institutions, but what appeared to be conformable 
to the interests of the Austrian Bureaucracy—as those in- 
terests were then comprehended at Vienna. The conse- 
quence was that in the course of a few years Italy was 
covered over with a net of secret societies. The cherished 
desire of the higher classes was to shake off the yoke of 
Austria. The French had, when in Spain, been able to win 
a party for themselves—the “ Afrancesados ;” but Austria 
could never once gain for herself a similar party in Italy. 
The occupiers of lands in the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom 
might rejoice at living in security under a well-regulated 
government; but in the cities all were Anti-Austrian, and 
all for “national independence.” The youths studying in the 
Universities were soon drawn into the whirlpool of a secret 


380 - EEO XI, 


and mighty movement. And then came literature, with its 
irresistible weight, to impart its influence. Every prohibition 
of a book produced a greater sale for it; and persons were 
more eager to read an author, and reposed more confidence 
in what he wrote, once he had become an object of political 
persecution. The secret societies—the Carbonaris, Adelfis, 
Guelphs, Sublime Masters—those, who had formerly made 
themselves partly known by their anti-Napoleon tendencies, 
now rendered their existence from time to time remarkable 
by a political assassination—or by an assassination to which 
a political colouring was given. Consalvi, hated by two 
opposite parties—by those resolved upon a political revolu- 
tion, and by the Zelanti—must be overthrown, and a Spanish 
Cortes Constitution, or something like it, proclaimed. The 
flame was, however, then opportunely smothered by the 
speedy suppression of the insurrection in Naples and Pied- 
mont. 

With the death of Pius VII., and the elevation of Leo 
XII, came to an end the ministry of Consalvi—a virulently- 
vituperated individual.! Under the new Pope, Leo XII. 
(the elect of the Zelanti), an opposite system to that which 
had hitherto prevailed came into operation. Leo had been 
chosen partly on account of his opinions, and partly also be- 
cause he was sickly, frail, and had the appearance of one 
likely to die very soon.2, He made Cardinal della Somaglia 
his minister—a man eighty years of age, and not of active 
habits. And so, at a most difficult and perilous period, when 
there was much required to be done, to be regulated, to be 
created, the destiny uf the country was placed in the hands 
of two grey-haired valetudinarians, weary of life, and just 
dropping into the grave! The Pope had been pressed, at 


' For an opinion of the Romans respecting him, see Coppi, ‘* Annali,”’ 
vii. 334. He is there reproached as having been ‘“ corteggiatore degli 
stranieri potenti ed imperioso sui sudditi pontificj.” 

* This is said by the French Consul in his despatch in ArTAuD, 
** Hist. de Leo XII.,” i. 130, and by Chateaubriand himself in his 
‘* Memoires,” viii. 215, ed. de Berlin. Della Genga was, in fact, not 
elected until after Austria had interposed its veto upon Cardinal Severoli. 


UNPOPULARITY OF HIS GOVERNMENT. 381 


the commencement of his reign, to nominate a Congregation 
of Cardinals for affairs of State; and they, it was thought, 
would be able substantially to carry on the government; but 
Leo soon put an end to this expectation by the declaration 
that he only intended to summon them occasionally, and 
then merely for the purposes of consultation. 

The weak, sickly Pope toiled on incessantly. The tendency 
of his measures, opposed to those of Consalvi, was in 
accordance with the wishes of ’the Zelanti. The Provincial 
Councils, one of Consalvi’s best institutions, were again 
abolished; and not only was the Inquisition re-established, 
but there was also introduced an extensive spy-system, both 
for the supervision of the conduct of officials, as well as the 
morals of the population.! It was the firm belief of Leo 
that safety alone was to be found in the restoration, so far as 
it was possible, of ancient institutions and manners. There- 
fore was everything connected with instruction more abso- 
lutely than before transferred to the clergy; “inoculation” 
was put an end to, and the immediate result was a greater 
number of deaths. Even the Latin language was again 
introduced into the proceedings of some of the courts; and 
Leo’s Government became the most unpopular that there had 
been in Rome for a century; and the people made him feel 
this, by the cessation of the usual plaudits that are given to a 
Pope when he appears in public. 

And yet Leo was animated with the very best intentions. 
He felt the untenableness of the new circumstances and 
institutions; but he fell into an error as to the proper remedy 
to be applied, and in making the attempt to breathe 
fresh life into that which was dead and gone by for ever. 
He recognized clearly enough that the whole system of 
officialism was rankling and rotting with a grievous defect, 
and that in such a circumstance lay a serious danger for the 
existing order of things. He had long before then remarked 
that a clerical official organism must be destitute of a rigid 


‘ Coppi, “* Annali,” vii. 337. I may here remark that Coppi, so often 
referred to by me, is an esteemed Roman clergyman, who has often been 
consulted upon affairs of State, as he himself mentions, vii, 146. 


382 LAY GOVERNMENT OFFICERS. 


and settled discipline, mainly because its members are priests, 
and, therefore, endowed with the privileges of their order ; 
that there is no law and no means by which they could be 
kept in check; and that they were alone to be operated upon 
by a hope of promotion. 

“Rome,” says the French Ambassador, in a dispatch of 
the year 1823,! “is a republic in which every one isa lord 
in his du«acripwrv. Consalvi had tried to change this; but 
upon the first rumour of his downfall, all these little autho- 
rities instantly re-established themselves.” In a Government 
so constituted as that in which ecclesiastics hold.all the higher 
appointments and offices of honour, and in which to laymen 
alone is permitted the retention of a number of small situa- 
tions, inferior places, and lower pay, there must ever be want- 
ing that moral motive power, without which modern bureau- 
cracy cannot exist: it combines a feeling of official honour, 
with the influence of a corporative spirit—things through 
which the multitude, who may not be actuated by high 
religious feelings, will yet be impelled strictly to adhere to 
the path of duty, and faithfully to discharge all the require- 
ments of their respective positions. Thus the lay government 
officer (and the Italians are but too well-inclined so to act) 
has regarded his situation as a maintenance, as a benefice for 
himself, and of which he ought, for the advantage of himself 
and his family, to make out as much pay and profits as he 
possibly could. Leo sought a remedy against such an abuse, 
in the establishment of a “ Congregazione di Vigilanza,”? 
whose duty it was to receive and examine into all accusa- 
tions that might be preferred against the Government 


1In ArtavD, “ Hist. de Léon XII.,” i. 134. 

2 “‘Bisogna far per la famiglia,” is a common saying amongst the lay 
officials. I was told, by a distinguished individual in Bologna, that it is 
their excuse for every act of corruption and embezzlement. There, too, 
is to be heard another common saying, characteristic of a glaring want 
in administrative discipline, ‘‘ Da noi, luna meta’ commandae l’altra non 
ubbidisce.” This naturally may be said in a State where the ecclesiastics, 
as formerly in some lands, and still, for example, in Hungary, the 
nobility, regard themselves as a privileged, and therefore as the governing 
class. 


SECRET SOCIETIES. 383 


officers, and which the Pope declared, to his great grief, he 
had found to be both numerous and well founded. Its 
only result, as Coppi remarks, was, that the spy system, 
with its deleterious consequences, was much increased.! 

The newly-elected Pope, in 1829, nearly resembled his 
predecessor. The pure and pious Castiglioni, or Pius VIIL., 
was a sickly, tottering old man, who had but a few months 
to live. Still, he instantly suppressed the “ Congregazione 
di Vigilanza,” and the spy system, which his predecessor had 
organized. He earned praise by having done so little, when 
Leo had done so much. The secret societies had meanwhile 
threatened to make an attack on the Papal States. In the 
Romagna several political assassinations were perpetrated ; 
and the Cardinal Rivarola, having been, on that account, 
dispatched thither, had 508 persons capitally convicted, 
amongst whom were 30, nobles, 156 occupiers of land, or 
shopkeepers, 74 employés, and 38 soldiers; but on none of 
these was the punishment of death inflicted. And yet, all 
that had been so accomplished was but to crush a single head 
of the hydra, and then soon to see others and new rise up 
in its place! 

The mischief of secret societies, which, for nearly the last 
fifty years, has been the greatest national plague of Italy, is 
generally regarded as being an Italian, and peculiarly a 
Southern Italian, malady. But, first, it is to be observed 
that, in a country where there is a complete subjugation of 
the press, and where a suspicious police dominates over a 
people dissatisfied with their condition, the formation of 
secret societies is as much in accordance with natural 
circumstances, as that there must, in the human body, 
if (‘Eav@qpara) pustules upon the skin be violently driven 
in from the surface, interior sores inevitably produced. 
Secondly, the formation of a secret society is the natural 
production of that impulse towards social activity, which an 
intellectual and lively population feels, when placed in a 
position where the necessaries of life are easily, and with 
little trouble, attainable. Now, when the Italians found that 


1 Coppi, vii. 374. 


384 OUTBREAK IN THE PAPAL STATES. 


they were excluded from the regular gratification of this 
impulse, through their exclusion from a participation in public 
affairs, and cut off from all opportunity of discussion, through 
the operations of the censorship, so they sought to indemnify 
themselves through the occupation and personal importance 
which the membership ina secret lodge conferred upon them. 
It must, however, in truth, be said that these combinations, in 
which even morally professing individuals eagerly entered, 
became but too often so many cloacas of the worst corrup- 
tion, and a curse to the entire country. This system of 
secret associations rendered the present time intolerable, 
and the future hopeless; whilst it forced those in authority to 
have recourse to measures of rude violence, in the place of 
carrying on a peacable and well-ordered government. The 
Papal authorities, in the difficult position in which they found 
themselves placed, had recourse to a very hazardous remedy : 
they promoted the establishment of the Sanfedisti, a volun- 
tary, but, at the same time, a non-legal association, composed 
mainly of the poorest and lowest classes, which soon got 
beyond their control, and, in some districts, became, in fact, 
master over the Government. 

The successor, at the close of the year 1830, of the deceased 
Pius was a Carmelite monk, Mauro Capellari, who was 
made a Cardinal in 1826, and who, up to the time of his 
election as Pope, had lived a total stranger to state affairs. 
Gregory XVI., a monk, a scholar, and an author, was, to the 
end of his days, devotedly attached to literature; but his 
knowledge of ecclesiastical affairs was as solid as his compre- 
hension of worldly matters was slight. And so reigned 
over the Papal States a series of Popes, who, in all that 
related to the Church and its concerns, were not merely 
faultless, but pre-eminently excellent; and yet, as temporal 
princes, possessed naught beyond their just intentions. 

The Revolution of July in Paris acted as a signal for 
popular insurrections; and in the course of a few weeks the 
greater part of the Papal States, as well as Modena and 
Parma, were in a flame. The outbreak took place whilst the 
Conclave was still sitting. The people were won over to the 


MEMORANDUM OF THE GREAT POWERS. 385 


cause of the insurrection by the removal of the imposts upon 
salt and flour; and the insurgents, confident that France 
would not permit any intervention on the part of Austria, 
hastily gathered together a Congress of popular representa- 
tives, by whom it was declared “ that the Pope was deprived 
of his temporal sovereignty.” Rome remained loyal; but 
outside of Rome the Papal officials in most places abandoned 
their posts hastily and recreantly—a proof in itself how 
insecure is the basis upon which rests a State destitute of all 
popular institutions. The revolution was as short-lived as a 
child’s game. The bloodless advance of the Austrians re- 
placed, with very little trouble, the old government, upon 
the condition of a general amnesty, with the exception of 
thirty of the insurgent leaders. 

A Conference of the Great Powers, in which Prussia, 
Russia, and England participated, presented to the Pope, on 
the 3lst May, 1831, the celebrated Memorandum upon 
which a great portion of the history of the Papal States has 
ever since then turned. That Memorandum recommended, in 
the first place—that improvements should be introduced, not 
only into the provinces that had revolted, but also into those 
that had remained loyal, as well as into the capital itself; 
secondly, that the laity should be admitted into all offices 
connected with the Government and the admipistration of 
justice. Further, that there should be an independent local 
administration of the communes, through Elected Councils, 
a restoration of the Provincial Councils; and, finally, 
“internal security against the changes incident to an elective 
sovereignty.”! 

Coppi, who was charged to draw up a plan of reform in 
correspondence to these requirements, states that Gregory 
and the majority of the Cardinals rejected every important 
change; that they were for maintaining the old monarchical 
and ecclesiastical principles, and for conceding nothing to the 
popular or lay party —“ because if anything were voluntarily 
conceded there would be no right afterwards to recall it.’”? 

1 See ‘‘ Mémoires de Guizot,” 1859, ii. 432. Coppr, viii. 143. 
2 Coppi, viii. 148. 
cc 


386 NECESSITY FOR REFORM ACKNOWLEDGED. 


Two things in particular were absolutely not to be assented to: 
there was to be no election of Communal and Provincial 
Councils, and there was to be no lay Council of State by the 
side of the Cardinal College. 

The Cardinal Secretary of State, Bernetti, who had, at 
first, spoken of “a new era commencing with the existing 
Pontificate,” addressed a despatch to the French Ambassador, 
in which was announced that which, in the general expecta- 
tion of many, was about to be accomplished, without, how- 
ever, specifically binding himself as to any fixed institutions 
or positive changes. But still there was promised “the new 
establishment of a government, with complete publicity as to its 
acts; such an improvement in the administration of the finances 
as no longer to afford an opportunity for suspicion as to their 
allocation; and the introduction of conservative institutions.”! 
The Government was afterwards bitterly reproached, both at 
home and abroad—that, although fifteen years of the Pontifi- 
cate had passed away since thie promises had been made, 
yet not one of them had been fulfilled. 

An attempt was, on one occasion, made to sustain the 
Government by the enlistment of 5,000 Swiss, since reliance 
could no longer be placed on the native soldiers; but the 
English plenipotentiary, Seymour, now declared, “That the 
financial condition of the Roman Government did not capaci- 
tate it to take into its pay so many foreigners, whose 
services could be required solely for the purpose of keeping 
down a whole discontented population: and since his govern- 
ment could no longer entertain the hope that any good 
could be effected Hehiadich it in sap he had received in- 
structions at once to leave the city.”? 

And yet there can be no question as to the fact that 
Gregory candidly acknowledged the necessity for compre- 
hensive reforms. I. Rernardi has recently declared that, to 
his astonishment, he heard, in the year 1843, the following 
words come from the lips of the Pope himself :—* The civil 
administration of the Roman States stands in need of great 


1 GUALTERIO, ‘* Documenti,” i. 94. 
2 Tbid., i, 102. 


OPPOSITION TO BE ENCOUNTERED. 387 


reform. I was too old when I was elected to be Pope. I did 
not expect to live so long, and had not the courage to begin 
the undertaking. For whoever begins it must carry it through 
thoroughly. I have now only a few years to live — perhaps 
only a few days. After me they will choose a young Pope, 
whose mission it will be to perform those acts without which 
it is impossible to go on.”! 

But in such matters as these, even the most resolute 
will of a Pope, when he has only a few by his side, and in 
the different departments of the public service, entertain- 
ing his own views, he can neither do much, nor can what he 
does be maintained for any length of time. Up to this 
period it had been inexpressibly difficult to carry out certain 
reforms in the Papal States. A Pope, with the purest inten- 
tions and most resolute will, must be baffled when he had 
arrayed against him the still, dogged, combined opposition of 
those who found their advantage in the maintenance of 
the old and settled state of things. The Pope must fail 
when the right men for carrying out reforms are not at hand 
to assist him. And so formerly had Adrian VI. and Clement 
VIL., notwithstanding their thorough good-will to effect an 
improvement in ecclesiastical affairs, been able to effect 
nothing. It happened in Rome, as it was wont to occur in 
Arragon, whenever the King gave a command that was 
displeasing to the people: the Arragonese expressed, in a 
settled form of words, their allegiance to the sovereign and 
their resolution not to obey him.? 

The measures of reform sanctioned by Gregory, and which 
were brought forward in the months of July, October, and 
November, 1831, were looked to as being something more 
than one could expect, after the Pope had refused to enter 
into any fixed engagement. That which was particularly 


1“ Rivista Contemporanea,” 1860, Febr., p. 97. The same things were 
told to me by a celebrated Roman scholar some time before they were 
printed in the “‘ Rivista”. I have thus not the slightest doubt as to the 
authenticity of the fact. 

2 ** Se obedezca, pero no se cumpla.” Let the order be attended to, but 
not acted upon. 
: cc 2 


388 UNPOPULARITY OF THE GOVERNMENT. 


sought for was an improvement in the administration of 
justice. There was, for instance, that monstrous institute of 
the Uditore Santissimo, the mere existence of which was 
regarded by every statesman and lawyer as a scandal to the 
Papal See. It was in 1831 completely put an end to.! 

As to the population, they, indeed, who had been expect- 
ing and anxious for other matters quite different from this, 
were not appeased by these edicts; and Count Pellegrino 
Rossi, afterwards the minister of Pius IX., wrote, with 
reference to what was then passing, in the following manner, 
to Guizot: “ We must yield to no delusion on this subject. 
A revolutionary spirit, in the sense that the present system 
of the Roman Government is utterly intolerable to the popu- 
lation, has penetrated to the very heart of the country. It 
is only when there has been a complete and comprehensive 
change in the manner of dispensing law, and that a reform in 
the entire mode of making laws has been effected, that any 
hope can be entertained of reconciling the people to the Papal 
Government.” 

Searcely, however, had the Austrians withdrawn their 
troops, when the uproar broke out anew. The moderate 
party would ‘have been content to see the Memorandum 
acted upon; but they, as it ever happens in revolutions, 
were speedily overborne by the Radicals; and the afflicted 
population welcomed with shouts of joy the Austrians, upon 
returning amongst them. Then speedily arrived the French, 
and took possession of Ancona, so that the field should not 
be left to the Germans alone. The edicts, which had been 
but a short time before promulgated, were now recalled in 
Rome, or they were permitted to remain inoperative. This 
naturally produced general discontent; and from that time 
forward the position of affairs every year became worse. 
The “ Papal Volunteers,” enlisted out of the lowest classes, 
exercised a gross terrorism; political assassinations, com- 
menced by the revolutionary party, became more frequent; 
the Government was, in consequence, rendered more sus- 

1 See with respect to it Guizor, ‘‘ Mémoires,” ii. 486-442. 
? GuizoT, l. c., p. 449. 


A MILITARY COMMISSION ESTABLISHED. 389 


picious and persecuting; and its whole support was thus 
placed on the fourfold weapons of the Austrian, French, 
Swiss, and its own troops, on the Sanfedisti and the Volun- 
teers. Espionage—doubly detestable and dangerous under a 
priestly government, because the people become thereby sus- 
picious of the misuse of a religious medium—was now gene- 
rally resorted to. The opponents of the Government had 
meanwhile, and mainly through the influence of Mazzini, 
divided themselves into “ Liberals” and “ Radicals” — 
(the Young Italy party.) The latter were peculiarly and 
exclusively “the destructives,’ who wished to annihilate 
all governments, as well as the Church, and to change the 
entire of Italy into a single Republic, in accordance with 
the pattern of 1793. In Middle Italy they were, however, 
still without influence; and after fifteen years, although they 
had seduced a number of students, still, upon the population 
itself, the real people, they had, according to their own con- 
fession, made no impression.! 

In the year 1838, the French withdrew from Ancona, 
and the Austrians from the Legations. The Swiss troops 
were gradually increased. The number of 17,000 men, which 
I find given, must either be an exaggeration, or it must com- 
prise the whole of the military force. Certain it is that 
these foreign soldiers were a heavy burden upon a failing 
exchequer, with a yearly deficit of a million of scudi. 

Gregory XVI. old and sickly, became inaccessible to 
strangers, and those who were about him endeavoured to 
conceal from his knowledge whatever might be disagreeable 
for him to hear. His understanding failed him for the com- 
prehension of state affairs; and thus all came into the hands 
of the Secretary of State, Lambruschini, and of the “ Mon- 
signori,” who were acting as Legates and Delegates in the 
provinces. A standing Military Commission, which decided 
upon complaints of political transgressions in an arbitrary 


‘In the “ Archivio triennale delle cose d'Italia” (Capolago, 1850, i. 
191) a Mazzinianer thus writes: ‘‘ Noi dovevamo confessare che, in 
quindici anni, non eravamo riusciti che a propagare nella gioventi: studiosa 
la passione politica, ma nel vero popolo mai.” 


390 TWO MAIN CAUSES OF DISCONTENT. 


manner, maintained, with the help of Swiss regiments, public 
order: and so contributed, with the deeds of violence com- 
mitted by the Sanfedisti, to nurture the general discontent. 
The Government seemed to be unconscious what bitterness 
of feeling was produced by the conviction that the country 
was compelled to bear a heavy burden of taxation, in order 
that pay might be given to foreign soldiers employed for 
the purpose of keeping the people down, and at the same 
time of enabling those in authority to refuse compliance with 
what were the wishes of the nation.! 

There were at that time two main causes for the spirit of 
discontent that prevailed, and the desire to shake off Papal 
domination. The one lay in the hatred against Austrian 
rule, and the policy of Vienna, which oppressed the whole 
of the Peninsula, and overpowered the nation. It was 
believed that the Papal Government was totally devoted to 
Austrian influence; and that it was only through means of 
Austria it could itself be maintained. The other cause lay 
in internal circumstances, which existed not only from 1824 to 
1846, but still are again partly to be met with, from the 
time of the restoration of Pius IX. These circumstances, 
such as they were and are since 1850, require to be looked 
at somewhat closely. 

It must, first of all, be remarked that the Papal States, as 
well as Italy generally, suffer from one great evil—and that 
is a want in the requisite orders of society. There is to be 
found there no self-independent peasant-proprietor class ; 
and there is no landed aristocracy. There is but a citizen 
class in the towns, and patricians; and these latter, for the 
most part, incompetent, degenerate, and demoralized indivi- 
duals. Leo XII. recognized this evil, and intended to elevate 
a nobility class, by his concession to it of certain rights; but 
the attempt failed, as it could not but fail, where there was 
an ecclesiastical body who, with their prerogatives, over- 
shadowed the social position of every one else. By the side 

1 The Italians have an energetic proverb, which was, at this period, 


to be often heard in the mouths of the people: ‘‘ Pagare il boja che ci 
frusti.” 


COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. 391 


of them an independent nobility could not possibly be 
elevated. 

And yet the people in the Papal States are not, judging 
of them by those endowments which they possess in common 
with other Italians, difficult to govern. A German, writing 
from the Campagna of Rome, in the year 1857,' says: 
“ Amongst all those thousands that passed me by, and of all 
the processions that 1 came up with after the completion of 
the festival, I never could observe even the slightest trait of 
rudeness in their conduct. . In fact, the purity of manners of 
the country people in this district, and especially as regards 
sobriety, and propriety of behaviour towards women, might 
well excite the envy of more thoughtful nations. There, for 
instance, they have not the slightest notion of that doleful 
practice which is the curse of Ireland, namely, that a land- 
lord can, whenever he pleases, drive a farmer out of his 
holding.” The rural population was by no means so 
hostile to the Papal Government as were the townsfolk.* 
Complaints were made, not only as to the incapacity and 
negligence of the Government for not affording sufficient 
protection to the dwellers in the country around from bands 
of robbers, but also as to the high and oppressive fees 
persons were compelled to pay to the ecclesiastical autho- 
rities, and especially in the Episcopal Courts. This state 
of feeling was in complete accordance with that of the 
town populations, who were, in general, indisposed to “ priests’ 
government ;” and who, too, had also to endure a number of 
grievances and annoyances. Beyond all other afflictions, 
that, however, which was felt to be the most galling was the 
exclusion of laymen from the higher offices of state; for all 
such were absolutely reserved for the “ Prelati.”. The offices 
in the public service were so distributed between clergymen 


1% Allg. Zeitung,” 5th Jan., p. 75. 

2? HeLFrerica, “ Briefe aus Italien,” ii. 57. 

3 Cardinal Massimo, in his report from Imola in 1845, says, that there 
was there ‘‘ una parte ben piccola della classe agricola, non ancor guasta 
del tutto nelle campagne,” devoted to the Government.—* Documenti 
sul Gov. pontif.,” i. 66. : 


392 EXCLUSION OF LAYMEN FROM OFFICE. 


and laymen, that the former were the rulers, and the latter 
the mere instruments by whose means the administration 
was carried on. The Secretaryship of State, the Sacra 
Consulta, the Camera Apostolica, the Buono Governo, the 
Congregazione Economica, the Police, the Treasury, the War 
Ministry,! the Legations and Delegations, the management 
of judicial affairs, and of instruction—all! all were in the 
hands of Cardinals and Prelati. Every lay official was thus 
made aware that his progress in life was hemmed in by 
certain barriers he never could pass over; that, no matter 
what number of years he had been in office, or how use- 
ful and faithful had been his services, still he could not 
obtain promotion to the highest position in his department ; 
that an ecclesiastic, no matter how inferior in competency, 
would still be preferred to him! Human nature in the 
Papal States is not different from what it is in all other 
parts of the world; and so the whole of the lay employés 
were utterly discontented, and perfectly ready, as recent 
circumstances have shown, to give in their adhesion to any 
other form of government. But the very mode in which 
appointments to public offices were made constituted in 
itself a subject of grave complaint. The system that pre- 
vails in other states, where there are long preparatory studies, 
and repeated examinations, to secure the just distribution of 
public offices, was unknown at Rome. A layman, to arrive 
even at the lowest situation, must belong to a religious con- 
fraternity, or be the protégé of a “ Prelato,” or a Cardinal, or of 
some order of friars. Thus the official laymen were frequently 
the compulsory and, but too often, the needy clients of 
“ Prelati.” The consequence of all this was that the best, 
the most intellectual, the most independent, and those who 


1“Das Kriegsministerium,” DéLLINGER, p. 572. This statement is 
not in accordance with the report of Mr. Lyons, who says: ‘‘ All the 
Ministers, except the Minister of War (or of Arms, as he is called), are 
ecclesiastics.” And again: ‘‘ All the ministers, except the Minister of 
Arms, are prelates.”—‘‘ Despatches from Mr. Lyons respecting the Con- 
dition and Administration of the Papal States.” London, 1660, pp. 5 
and 8.—Note by TRANSLATOR. 


NEGLIGENCE AND VENALITY OF EMPLOYES. 393 


had a fitting respect for their own reputation turned away 
from the service, and, by so doing, condemned themselves to _ 
a life of torpor and idleness—and so, too, added to the masses 
of malcontents, and, when the opportunity arrived, of— 
conspirators ! 

In a letter to the author, from a German nobleman, whose 
fame is European, as a keen and profound observer of the 
condition of foreign nations, and who lived a considerable 
time in the Roman States, it is observed: “ There is a deep 
depravity of the middle and higher classes, and of the 
employés who spring from such classes, and whom the Papal 
Government has done so much to degrade. The negligence 
and venality of these persons can only be compared to what 
prevails amongst Russian officials. Amid 5000 officials 
there are to be found between two and three hundred eccle- 
siastics. These latter are far better than the others — they 
are almost never corruptible, for the sake of money; but they 
are inefficient, without energy, and slothful. And then, as to 
the lay officials, they are undoubtedly, almost without a single 
exception, corruptible.” 

To these circumstances was to be added the feeling that, 
from the want of inviolable ordinances, the freedom, property, 
and honor of individuals were at the mercy of persons armed 
with power; for the laws afforded no security, as they could, 
in particular cases, be set aside by the supreme authorities. 
Bailiffs, or constables (sbirvi), required no special warrant to 
break into a dwelling, whether they chose to do so by night 
or by day.! The three main causes of discontent with the 
administration of justice in the Papal States were, the civil 
jurisdiction of the Bishops; the privileged exemption of 
clergymen as to the courts that should have jurisdiction over 
them, as well as to the dissimilarity of punishments inflicted 


1 AcuirrE, “ L’Italie aprés Villafranca,” 1859, p. 10. The author is, 
or was, an inhabitant of the Roman States. He is one of those who 
wish to maintain the temporal sovereignty of the Pope, and who be- 
lieve in the curability of existing evils. The picture, however, that 
he presents of the system of Government hitherto prevailing is a very sad 
one. 


394 - ORDINANCES OF THE CLERICAL POLICE. 


upon them; and, lastly, by the tribunal of the Inquisition.! 
The Bishops, who had their own prisons, decided upon and 
inflicted pains and penalties in all questions affecting the 
persons and property of ecclesiastics, in matters concerning 
relations between the two sexes ;? and in cases of blasphemy, 
and the transgression of the laws respecting fast and festival 
days. 

The Cardinal and Bishop of Sinigaglia, in the year 1844, 
issued an ordinance forbidding young men and maidens from 
sending presents to each other; and if a father should be 
found not complying with this order, then it was directed, 
in cases of transgression, that the father and son, or father 
and daughter, should be imprisoned for fifteen days.* The 
Bishops, at the Provincial Synod of Fermo, in the year 1850, 
threatened with punishment every innkeeper who supplied 
their guests with flesh meat on fast-days, unless they could 
produce two witnesses, one of whom must be a physician, 
and the other a curate.‘ 

A new and peculiar sort of punishment was devised, and 
by it 229 persons in the Romagna were, at one and the same 
moment, made to suffer. This was the “ Precetto Politico” 
of the first class. The person upon whom this punishment 
was imposed was compelled to reside in his birth-place; he 
must be in his own house by a certain hour in the morning; 
every fourteen days he must present himself before the 
police-inspector; and every month go to confession, and he 
must shew, by witnesses, that the priest, with whom he had 
been at confession, was a Father-confessor approved of by 
the police !—and, then, every year, he must make a Spiritual 
retreat of three days, in a monastery appointed for him by 
a Bishop! Neglect of any one of these regulations became 
punishable with three years of compulsory labour! In Italy 
there were many who opined—* There are few countries in 


1 MonTANELLI, ‘* Memorie sull’ Italia,” ii. 79. 

2 Cause di stupro e di illegitima pregnanza. 

* This document is printed by GENNARELLI, ‘I lutti dello stato 
Romano.” Florence, 1860, p. 160. 

* “ Documenti sul Governo pontificio,” ii. 299. 


EDICT OF THE INQUISITION. 395 


Europe where such a commingling of the police officer with 
religion would be patiently submitted to.” 

The Bishops and the Prelati-police have hitherto penetrated 
too deeply into domestic and family-life ; and yet there was 
superadded to both the judicial jurisdiction of the Inquisi- 
tion! This was, notwithstanding the mildness for which it 
was famed,! still detested and dreaded, because the principle 
upon which it was based was this: that every one who knew 
of a misdemeanour being committed was liable to punish- 
ment, if he did not denounce it; and, then, he who became 
the denunciator was shrouded in mystery, whilst the accused 
was never permitted to know the names either of his accuser, 
or of the witnesses against him.” 

In the year 1841, the Inquisitor at Pesaro, Fra Filippo 
Bertolotti, issued an Edict, by which he required, under a 
threat of various punishments, excommunication amongst 
the rest, that every one should give information of all 
ecclesiastical offences coming to his knowledge; such, for 
instance, as that of a person, who had not received permission 
to do so, eating flesh or using milk upon fast-days !* Foreigners 
dwelling in the Papal States have, in amazement, asked: 
“If the servant-men and maid-servants employed in the 
kitchens of the ‘ Sant Ufizio’ would make it a matter of 
conscience, if they had chanced to cook any meat for their 
masters on a fast-day, to denounce them, and involve them in 
legal proceedings ?” 


1 If I am not mistaken, there never was, in the Papal States, since the 
end of the sixteenth century, a single capital execution enforced through 
the instrumentality of the Inquisition, or on account of a religious trans- 
gression. 

2 As a proof of the bitter feeling of the people against the Inquisition, 
see the letter of the Chevalier Tommaso Poggi of Cesena to the French 
Ambassador in Rome, Saint-Aulaire, printed by GuaLrerio, ‘* Docu- 
menti,” i. 274. Amongst other things, it is there said, ‘‘ The innermost 
secrets of our conscience, and of our families, form the subject-matter of 
their hateful prosecutions and dark sentences. So little is there a thought 
in Rome of ie Government pene itself with the population and 
public opinion.” 

3“ Documenti,” i. 303. 


396 LAW ADMINISTERED BY PRIESTS. 


A clergyman, when he is armed with a double power, the 
judicial and the adminstrative, must always find the effort 
exceedingly difficult to reconcile his personal opinion and 
his subjective judgment upon individuals, and to prevent his 
tenderness and his inclination from winning an influence over 
him in the discharge of his official duties. As a priest, he is 
the servant of all, and the herald of grace, of pardon, of the 
remission of punishment; and he therefore too readily forgets 
that in human concerns the law is “ deaf and inexorable,” 
and that tampering with a law to favour one person is an 
injury to another, or it may be to many others, or it may be 
to the whole frame of society; and that he who may thus 
begin with the best intentions, gradually will find himself 
placing his own will above what is the strict law. As it is, 
Italians are but too little disposed either to comprehend or 
to practise the impartial, passionless administration of the 
law, without consideration as to its consequences. The path 
of descent being once trodden, leads him, who has entered 
upon it, unavoidably to a precipice. For then come the sub- 
altern lay employés of the Courts, who for the most part 
are indebted for their appointments to favour and ecclesiasti- 
eal patronage, and who, receiving a scanty salary, have wives 
and children to maintain, and before their eyes the example 
of their superiors, who have been dealing with the law ac- 
cording to their will and pleasure. Hence follows corrup- 
tion and arbitrary conduct in law proceedings, which Cantu 
has declared to have been the characteristics of all legal 
processes under Gregory XVI.' 

But still more critical and perilous is the exercise by 
priests of the powers of a police. Here is an employment 
which requires things to be done that in a Christian point of 
view had better be avoided. The police, in an absolute go- 
vernment, is armed with a power that is essentially omni- 
potent, and in its contact with others, in the struggle of 
everyday life, and in a time of political excitement, and nu- 

1 La giustizia era corruttibile non solo, ma esposta agli arbitrij de’ 
superiori, e alle interminabili restituzioni in intero.”—“‘Storia degi 
Italiani,” vi. 684. 


ARBITRARY POWER OF IMPRISONMENT. 397 


merous conspiracies, makes a cruel use of its omnipotence. 
It leaves unpunished things which, judged of according to 
the Gospel, are mortal sins; and it punishes others in which 
a Christian can discern nought that is sinful. Is it then to 
be wondered at that the people find it impossible to discover 
what can be a justification for this contradiction between the 
priestly character and the police-officer’s active vigilance ? 

In strong and dark contrast with what was a characteristic 
of the Papal Government, with that mildness for which it 
was justly praised—has been the arbitrary power of impri- 
sonment, filling the gacls with captives for whom no one—as 
in other countries—would be permitted to go bail. Cardinal 
Morichini, in his Finance Report, expatiated upon the wretch- 
ed state of the prisons, and the unavoidable demoraliza- 
tion of persons confined in them.' Even in this matter 
financial difficulties rendered it impossible to effect a com- 
prehensive reform. In the doleful times that have passed 
since 1848, there grew up a system of incarcerating masses 
of persons in unhealthy gaols, and from that system sprang 
still greater rancour against the authorities. The “ Gover- 
natore” of Faenza, Luigi Maraviglia, made, in the year 1853, 
this representation of facts: “ A great number of persons 
have, without a hearing, without process, perhaps, even, with- 
out the suspicion of crime—but merely from precaution— 
been dragged to prisons, where they now are, for a full year, 
still remaining! More that 450 processes are already pend- 
ing for four or five years. By such modes of proceeding can 
no love for princes be implanted in the hearts of the people.”? 
It is to be understood that such circumstances as these oc- 
curred without the slightest knowledge on the part of the 
Pope. Had he been made acquainted with them, his own 
goodness of heart and love of justice would, most assuredly, 
have impelled him to oppose and put an end to them. 

For full thirty years misfortune after misfortune has fallen 
upon the Papal Government in the States of the Church; 
but of all these calamities the most lamentable assuredly is, 


1 “ Documenti sul Gov. pontif.,” f. i. 578. 
2 * Documenti,” i. 42. 


398 PRIVILEGED POSITION OF THE PRIESTHOOD. 


that it should be deemed necessary to transfer to ecclesiastics 
the judicial condemnation and punishment of political offences. 
When, as it has often happened, the opinions and sentiments 
of an individual, admitted by the rulers themselves to be 
those universally prevailing, were brought forward as subsi- 
diary proofs, and used as grounds for inflicting the severest 
punishment upon a man, against whom there were not other- 
wise sufficient proofs for a conviction—where these things 
could be done, there indeed must the breach between the 
people and the clergy be still further widened.’ 

The exceptional and privileged position of a very numerous 
priesthood gave rise to another complaint. The Cardinal de 
Luca had laid down the principle that the enactments and 
laws of the Pope, as a temporal prince for the clergy, were 
not binding, if it was not expressly said, or was not to be 
presumed from the contents, that he had issued the ordinance 
as Head of the Church.? The clergy also had their privileged 
“forum,” so that, if a priest and a layman were participators 
in the same crime, they must be tried by two different courts 
of justice. Even the punishments inflicted upon them were 
different. Priests convicted of crime had still the privilege 
of being subjected to a milder punishment than if they were 
laymen. “An inverse proportion of punishment would be 
the more righteous,’ was the opinion expressed by Massimo 
d’ Azeglio. 

A highly critical case of this sort, and one that was hailed 
by the English journals and periodicals with a malicious joy, 
whilst it excited a painful surprise in all Europe, was brought 
prominently before the public in the year 1852. In the law 
proceedings in London, instituted by the Roman Dominican 
monk, Achilli, who had become a Protestant, it appeared 

1 See in the second volume of the ‘‘ Documenti sul Governo pontificio,” 
the printed acts of the prosecutions and sentences, passim. 

2‘ Dottor volgare,” lib. xv.,c. 1. ~ 

’ Thus runs the definition of the law: ‘‘ Ove pero possa aver luogo la 
pena stabilita pei laici, si accorda loro (ai cherici) nei delitti communi 
un grado di minorazione di pena.” And ‘Se la pena stabilita della legge 
é opera o la galera, trasmettono il condannato al luogo ove trasmetterebbe 
il Tribunale Kcclesiastico.” 


CHANGE IN THE POLICY OF ENGLAND. 399 


that he was a man who had been charged with shameful 
crimes, such as in Germany would have assigned him to an 
infamous punishment in a convict prison, but that, having 
been arraigned before the ecclesiastical courts in Rome, he 
was there treated with an indulgence such as it would be 
impossible to meet with in any other country; and it 
also appeared that, despite of the condemnation upon him 
by the Provincial of his Order, he had been taken as an as- 
’ sociate and attendant in visitations, and that he was after- 
wards made a Professor in the College of Minerva, at Rome, 
and then sent as a preacher to Capua !! 


And here a passing remark may be permitted to the 
author. Surprise has frequently been felt with respect to 
the complete change that has taken place in the policy of 
England, with reference to the Papal States in particular. 
England had energetically co-operated in the restoration of 
those States to Pius VII. For a long time, the Roman 
Government regarded the English as a kindly disposed and ~ 
friendly power. Gregory XVI. declared to Lord Nor- 
manby, in the year 1844, that it was his ardent desire 
England should enter into direct diplomatic correspondence 
with the Roman See, and send an ambassador to Rome. 
In the month of April, 1847, the Papal Nuncio, in Paris, 


1 It was in the “‘ Dublin Review,” of June 1850—a Catholic periodical, 
published under the patronage of Cardinal Wiseman—that these facts 
were first brought to light. ‘Then followed the celebrated prosecution of 
** Achilli,” versus Dr. Newman, by means of which the testimonies of the 
witnesses to these facts became more widely known. The subject filled 
for weeks the English journals. The costs of the prosecution against 
Dr. Newman were defrayed by a general subscription in Catholic coun- 
tries. The report of the case, published by Mr. Finlason, passed through 
several editions in a very short space of time. What conclusions were 
drawn from this case on the side of the Protestants, and what reproaches 
against the Papal See were grounded upon it, may be surmised from one 
article (amongst numberless others) published in the ‘‘ Christian Remem- 
brancer,” vol. xxiv., pp. 401-424. Neither in England nor in Rome was 
an answer attempted to be given to the scathing, and, under the circum- 
stances, naturally severe reproaches of the ‘‘ Times.” 


400 OPPOSITION TO THE PAPAL GOVERNMENT. 


Fornari, said to the same Lord Normanby, that it was the 
constant wish of the Roman Government that England 
might, through such means, afford a more active and ener- 
getic support, and thereby also promote an improvement in 
the social condition of Italy.!. Lord Palmerston, who was 
then Foreign Minister, sent Lord Minto to Rome, with 
instructions to promise to the Pope the most determined 
support of England in carrying into effect the Memorandum 
of the Powers in 1831. At that time, the statesmen of 
England had no thought of doing anything calculated to 
hasten the overthrow of the temporal sovereignty of the 
Pope. But all that is now, in sooth, very much changed.? 
Since 1851, the English Government has become the open 
adversary of the Papal States, and has thrown all the weight 
of its influence into the scale of Piedmont. It does so 
under the pressure of public opinion in England—a power 
to which every cabinet there must submit. Even a Tory 
ministry would be compelled to pay attention to the potency 
of this popular feeling in its Italian policy. The public 
opinion now prevailing there has been formed, fashioned and 
moved by the statements of English individuals residing in 
the Papal States, which statements have appeared in the 
daily papers; as well as by the work of Farini, which has 
been translated into English by Mr. Gladstone, the Chan- 
cellor of the Exchequer.2 And now the will of the entire 
nation, and the policy of its government, are alike arrayed 
in a most hostile manner’ against the maintenance of the 
Papal State. With a portion of the population—and it is 
only a portion—the Protestant hatred against the Papal See 
has been sharpened into still stronger animosity, on account 
of the rage excited by two recent measures of Rome—first, 


1 See the Blue-book, ‘* Correspondence respecting the affairs of Italy,” 
1846-47. London, 1849, pp. 36, 38. - 

2 See Lord Minto’s report of his interview with the Pope, January, 
1848. ‘‘ Correspondence,” Part ii., 1848, p. 44. 

*** Lo stato Romano, dall’ a. 1815, all’ a. 1850,” 4 vols. Farini’s 
work has been noticed in Rome itself for its preciseness in matters of 
fact, and trustworthiness. Coppi has made considerable use of it. 


CONDITION OF THE PRIESTHOOD, 401 


the establishment of an Episcopacy in England, and, secondly, 
by the rejection of the Queen’s Colleges, with their mixed 
education in Ireland. The policy of the English Cabinet is 
also influenced by a wish to see a powerful Italy formed— 
a power capable of maintaining itself upon a firm basis—and 
which, under the guidance of England, may serve as a coun- 
terpoise to the threatening ascendancy of France. 


As to the state and social condition of the clergy, it has 
called for a deeply penetrating reformation. That the clergy 
have been, on the whole, morally blameless, is universally 
admitted ;! but the conditions for entering upon the priest- 
hood have been placed upon too low a scale. A person, 
notwithstanding his thorough want of knowledge, and mean 
capacity, easily becomes a priest ; and then there have been 
for those persons such a number of benefices, affording nei- 
ther sufficient occupation nor a becoming subsistence. The 
consequence has been that an immense multitude of idle 
ecclesiastics were to be seen wasting their days in coffee- 
houses, and loitering in the street, passing their time in an 
unpriestly manner, so that a reverence for the entire order 
had very much diminished amongst the population.? In the 
country parts, a great number of the pastors were in a state 
of lamentable poverty,* and for this reason, therefore, as 
well as from innate dulness, they left the people without in- 
struction.* The higher orders of the laity wish that the pres- 

1 Farin, i. 164. See also ‘‘ Appendice al libro d’Azeglio,” 1846, p. 
57. AGUIRRE, p. 112. 

? Those who have been in Rome well hie what is meant by the ex- 
pression, ‘‘ preti di piazza.” Something like the same thing is to be seen 
in Russia. 

*T curati che sono generalmente poverissimi, ed hanno il peso de’ 
poveri,” says Cardinal Morichini, in his Report, p. 575. 

* “ Appendice al libro d’Azeglio,” p. 56. The author, a Romagnese, 
says: ‘‘Il clero pontificio é il pit ignorante di tutto il clero cattolico 
salvo poche eccezioni.” In other parts of Italy it is, in fact, not one 
whit better, as bishops grant ordination with a facility of which no one 
in Germany can have-an idea. See what is said upon the incredible 
ignorance of the Piedmontese clergy, by the distinguished teacher, Pro- 
fessor Domenico Berri, “ Rivista Italiana,” 1850, i. 123, 124. 


DD 


402 . PREVENTIVE CENSORSHIP. 


sure of the censorship was either put an end to, or mitigated. 
“The state to which we are brought,” say intellectually 
gifted persons in the Papal States, “is this—that in the 
finest, and, mentally, most richly endowed part of Italy, we 
are absolutely without any literature—nothing now appears 
but a few volumes on archeological subjects, and local 
histories—not a line of the slightest importance upon 
science and general literature.” In fact, Leo XII. had, 
through the Dominican monks, rendered still more severe the 
existing preventive censorship; and his timidity compelled 
him to do this, as his aim was that no publication contain- 
ing an expression calculated to excite the displeasure of 
foreign powers, or to give rise to important disputes, should 
be allowed to be printed, except with the direct sanction of 
the Secretary of State.!_ People felt themselves cribbed and 
hemmed in upon all sides. The inhabitants of Forli wished 
to establish an Agricultural Association. After a long 
delay, they at last obtained permission to do so, from the 
“Congregazione degli studi,” but it was upon the condition 
that all the members should first be approved of by the 
president of the Government; that they should assemble 
together for no other purpose than to speak upon agricultu- 
ral affairs; and, furthermore, that at each of the meetings 
there should be read a lecture, which had previously received 
the approval of the Censorship.2- The whole project was, of 
course, on the instant, abandoned. The Government suffered 
much, too, in public respect, and in the confidence of the 
people, through the utterly disordered state of its finances. 
Loans were contracted upon the most unfavourable con- 
ditions—upon one occasion, a bargain was made with Roth- 
schild, at 624 per cent. upon the nominal value. There was 
a yearly deficit of more than two million of guilders, and, at 
the same time, gross confusion and disorder prevailed in the 
palace expenditure. There was scarcely a country in Europe 
in which there was to be found so fathomless an arbitrary 
power in financial matters. The treasurer, Tosti, was 
‘regarded as a pattern of the worst finance minister that could 


1 Coprt, ix. 76. 2 “ Documenti,” i. 540. 


REPROACHES AGAINST THE PAPAL GOVERNMENT. 403 


_ by any possibility be ever discovered. When Galli entered 
into this department of the ministry, in the year 1848, he 
declared in an official report: “ that, as to the past, he could 
not undertake even the smallest share of responsibility— 
there were so many accounts unsettled, and there were so 
many vouchers wanting; and then the authorizations for ex- 
penditure were partly not to be found, or those that were 
discoverable were so overladen with charges, additions, 
and deductions, as to render the authentication of them 
impracticable.” ! 

In addition to all this, it was made a matter of reproach 
to the Papal Government, in every part of Italy, that it, by 
means of the lottery, at which priests felt no scruple in taking 
an active part, had nurtured and incited a vice—the rage for 
gambling—to which the common race of Italians are already 
but too much addicted. Alexander VII. and Benedict 
XIII. had formerly forbidden lotteries, under pain of ex- 
communication. Cardinal Morichini, in his report upon the 
state of the finances, declared it to be urgently advisable to 
sacrifice the income derived from the lottery, “asa victim to 
public morality.” ? And joyfully would the Pope have as- 
sented to this; but the deficit and the new calamities that 
befell the country rendered it impossible for him to do so. 


The temper of the provinces became still more gloomy and 
embittered. The cities addressed strongly-worded petitions 
to the College of the Cardinals. These petitions state: 
“The intervention of the Great Powers has been of no avail 
to us. Of their proposals not one has been carried into 
effect ; whilst the concessions that had been made have been 
recalled. The people are never, even once, permitted to lay 
their wishes before the Government. About two thousand 
individuals have had sentences of condemnation passed upon 

1 AGurIRRE, p. 141. 

* See what is said upon this point by AzEGx1o, “ Raccolta degli scritti 
politici,” 1850, p. 67. Tommasro, ‘“ Roma e il mondo,” 1851, p. 243, 
and almost all who have written on the circumstances then occurring. 

* Documenti sul Governo pontif., i. 577. 


* GUALTERIO, ‘“* Documenti,” p. 184. - 
DD 2 


404 DEFECTIVE LEGISLATION. 


them; and of these some are now in prison, or, as outlaws, 
wander in foreign lands. And in what description of prisons 
are the incarcerated? In pestiferous dungeons, where the 
convicted are huddled up with the unconvicted—those charged 
with political offences with those who have deprived others 
of property or of life.!| In our legislation there is neither 
unity nor harmony. No one can know whether an obsolete 
or a new law, a ‘ Motuproprio’ or an Edict, will, in any given 
case, be brought forward against him or for him.? In our 
Penal Code all is vague, uncertain, and contradictory. A 
lawless police pushes its arbitrary power to the extremest 
point, and meddles in everything.* Appointments and pro- 
motions in the public service are dependent upon the favour 
and dislike of a few in power; knowledge, science, ex- 
perience, and substantial services are of no use to the 
possessors.£ We will not be allowed to have railroads; 
whilst trade is struck down under an oppressive system of 
prohibitions. We are exhausted by means of monopolies 
and tax-farming, which enhance the prices of the indis- 
pensable necessaries of life, enrich a few at the cost of the 
State and the people, demoralise one part of the population, 
and bring down upon the Government the hatred of many 
thousands.® Through the operation of an absurd system of 
excise, our country has become the classic land of smugglers 
and contrabandists ; and as to our native industry, it is 
not permitted, either by law or circumstances, to develop 
itself.6 And we are on the road to universal pauperism by 
the enormous disproportion between our imports and exports.’ 

1“ Appendice al libro d’Azeglio,” p. 51. 

? AGUIRRE, p. 134. 

*“ Un capo di polizia appunto perché non vi é un codice, pud far 
tutto,” &c.—** Appendice,” p. 47. 

‘ What is here expressed in mild terms is represented in very dark 
colours by the Italians—for instance, in the ‘“ Appendice,” p. 79, by 
AGUIRRE, AZEGLIO, and others. 

5 “* Appendice,” p. 68. 

* “ L’industria rimasta in culla fra noi nel mezzo del progresso di tutta 
l’Europa,” says Cardinal Morichini, in his Report, p. 377. 

7 Imports, 92,000,000 franes; exports, only 31,000,000 francs.— 
ZELLER, “ Histoire de l’Italie,” 1853, p. 558. 


MANIFESTO OF 1845. 405 


We are, forsooth, told that we pay fewer taxes than other 
populations; but this does not disprove the fact that we are 
far more poor than others, and that we are compelled to 
bear oppressive communal tolls, and such other burdens.” 

The Military Commissions, and the conduct pursued by 
them in the Romagna in 1843 and 1844, increased the feel- 
ings of animosity and discontent. A party of insurgents 
took, without opposition, possession of the town of Rimini, 
and then made their escape into Tuscany. In the year 1845 
there was published a Manifesto, addressed to the sovereigns 
and people of Europe, in which the following concessions 
were required :—“Ist, An amnesty. 2nd, The promulgation 
of civil and criminal codes in conformity with those in force 
amongst other civilized nations, and including publicity in 
the proceedings, in the hearing of witnesses, and in the aboli- 
tion of confiscation of property and punishment of death for 
political offences. 3rd, The releasing of laymen from the 
jurisdiction of the Inquisition and of the Ecclesiastical 
Courts; and, further, the free election of Municipal Coun- 
cils; the institution of a Council of State at Rome; the 
bestowal of all civil, military, and judicial offices upon lay- 
men; an amelioration of the censorship; the dismissal of 
foreign troops; the management of education by laymen; 
and the establishment of a National Guard.” Farini was the 
author of this Manifesto; but, at a later period, even he 
seemed to regard some of the demands made in it as un- 
reasonable, or as going somewhat too far. 

The Papal Government declared, in an official reply,' that 
it rejected all these demands. The exclusion of laymen from 
the higher offices in the State was, it maintained, consider- 
ably ameliorated by the fact that a person could be a 
“ Prelato” without being a priest—as all that was required 
was wearing the dress of an ecclesiastic and keeping the 
vow of celibacy.2 Then, as to the Inquisition—its proceed- 


1The document will be found in Mareorti, ‘‘ Le Vittorie della 
Chiesa.” Milano, 1857, pp. 490-507. 

* Few persons could feel satisfied with this reference to the part 
assigned to the ‘‘ Prelati,” whose only participation in the sacerdotal 


406 PUBLICATIONS ON THE PAPACY. 


ings were conducted with great mildness and tenderness ; 
but still it would ‘not be fair to confine its jurisdiction to 
clergymen, and to leave laymen free from its operations. As 
to the Universities and literature—they were in a prosperous 
condition (but it must be owned that all Europe maintained 
the very opposite of this assertion). Such was the opinion © 
then put forward by the Secretary of State: it affirmed that 
the averments as to existing evils in the Papal States, and a 
necessity for reforming them, were nothing more than the 
wicked invention of some malcontent and uneasy spirits. 

In the whole of Italy a conviction the very opposite to 
this prevailed. Men whose words had the greatest weight 
with the nation spoke out distinctly, “that affairs could not 
remain as they were in the Papal States.” A great sensa- 
tion was caused by the writings of Massimo d’Azeglio. Even 
Cesare Balbo, an ardent Guelph, and the historical venerator 
of the Papacy,! rejoiced that the publications of Azeglio and 
Galeotti had appeared, because they exposed the defects and 
malpractices in the Government of the Papal States; and it 
was his opinion that the literary work of Azeglio had not 
been without influence upon the Conclave by whom Pius IX, 
was elected as Pope.” 

The Marquis Gino Capponi—a man honored and respected 
beyond all others in [taly—thus expressed his opinion :* “ In 
the Papal States there never will be peace, unless the govern- 
ment be taken out of the hands of priests and transferred to 
character was, that they wore the habit of a priest, and took a vow of 
celibacy, and were thus made to appear as laymen concealed under a 
priest’s mask. It is comprehensible how such a double character should 
have given rise to the suspicion that an amphibious position like this was 
only assumed from ambition or avarice, and that those occupying it 
should not stand very high in public opinion; whilst the married lay 
employés, who saw those half-priests promoted over their heads, could 
not but feel still more bitterly against them on account of their own 
advancement being prevented. 

1 “To son gran papolino, al solito,” was his own expression respecting 
himself in the year 1848. Rucorrt, “* Vita di Balbo,” 1856, p. 265. 

* * Lettere di politica e letteratura,” 1855, p. 356. 

* Anonymously in the ‘‘ Gazzetta Italiana.” See, with reference to it, 
MoxTANELLI, ‘‘ Memorie,” i. 84. 


DISSATISFACTION WITH SACERDOTAL RULE. 407 


laymen; and that it bears in mind how, in the Middle Ages, 
the Papal sovereignty reposed upon the power of ah idea, 
and the prestige of a name, whilst it was on all sides con- 
trolled by the conflicting jurisdictions of the people and the 
nobility. The existing mode of government—this sacerdotal, 
all-intermeddling, tax-imposing, catch-poll system of admi- 
nistration, is a novelty of modern times. The Pope must 
bring back his sovereignty to what it formerly had been, 
and gradually constitute a different description of Ministers, 
different institutions and laws; or else—the Tiara will be 
stained with blood, and at last rolled in the mire.” 

Difficulties, abortive efforts, humiliations, and defeats be- 
fell the Government, and daily overwhelmed it. There was 
no end to the incongruities, inextricable embarrassments, 
and collisions in which the governing ‘ Prelati” and priest- 
hood found themselves involved between their ecclesiastical 
status and the fitting discharge of their official duties. These 
grew upon them, as polypi are generated out of one another. 
The instruments of government broke to pieces in its hands. 
The Papal soldiery became such objects of contempt that the 
people would not enlist in their ranks ; and whena few were, 
by the temptation of high pay, brought together, they soon 
again were disbanded, and it was necessary to call in the 
Austrians to protect the Papal troops from the scorn and 
assaults of the population. 

In the year 1843 the Government received a report from 
Ferrara, “ That the whole of the population of the Romagna 
was inimically disposed towards the Government.”! From 
Imola the Cardinal-Legate, Massimo, reported, on the 12th 
August, 1845: “ The pride of the population makes a priests’ 
government intolerable to it. From the patricians down to 
the lowest shop-boys, they are all sworn to protect every one 
who is prosecuted, and to save him from punishment. Many 
of the officials and clergy are inclined to be on a good 
understanding with the innovators. The whole of the pre- 

1“ T pochissimi amici del Governo non hanno voce in queste provincie, 


perché appunto sono pochi e l’Universale ¢ nemico.”—‘ Documenti,” 
i. 70. 


408 ; PIUS IX. 


sent generation, from the age of eighteen and upwards, must 
be regarded as lost ; for they are completely inimical to the 
Government, and always to be found in an attitude of hos- 
tility against it.”!_ The Governor of Rome, Marini, in his 
answer, says: “ From many other places the reports are to 
the same effect; but the main-spring of all this evil is to be 
found in the fact—compulsory idleness, a want of contented 
industry; and both of these are concomitants of the present 
system of government.” ? 

Many of the ecclesiastics, such as Cardinal Massimo, were 
disposed to trace the main cause of the melancholy state of 
things and aversion to the Papal Government, to the seeds 
of indifferentism and infidelity which had been spread amongst 
the people by the French troops when in occupation of the 
country.’ But laymen, like Aguirre, Tommaseo, and Azeg- 
lio, replied: “It is the gross faults and abuses of the civil 
government which make the people falter in their faith, and 
shake their confidence in the Papal guidance of the Church. 
The unfayourable opinion fostered by the condition to which 
the priests’ government of the Papal States has reduced 
them, opens a path for erroneous doctrines in religion.” 4 


Pius [X.—1846-1861. 


Out of a Conclave—one that had only lasted three days, 
and was the briefest that had occurred for nearly three hun- 
dred years—came forth Pius IX. The arrival of foreign 
Cardinals had manifestly not been expected. What was par- 
ticularly aimed at was to guard against Austrian influence, 
and the Austrian negation. Cardinal Mastai, that Gregory 
himself had desired to have as his successor, and who was 

1“ T)ocumenti,” i. 66. At the same time the Cardinal admits the de 
fective mode of administering the law: ‘‘ Si rende formolaria ed ineffi- 
cace.”” : 
2“Tozio e il niun sfogo che hanno gli amor proprii eccitati dall’ 
esempio degli esteri,” 1. ¢., p. 67. 

* “ Documenti sul Gov. pontif.,” i. 66. 

* AGUIRRE, p. 174; Tommasezo, “Roma e il mondo,” p. 73; 
D’Azxc110, ‘“ La Politique et le droit chrétien,” p. 115. 

5 So says Sttvio Pexxico, ‘ Epistolario,” 1856, p. 324. 


PROMISING COMMENCEMENT OF HIS REIGN. 409 


then but fifty years of age, appeared to be the fitting man. 
As Nuncio in Chile, he had looked upon the world outside of 
the Papal States, and he had made a comparison between 
the condition of other lands and his own. To continue to 
govern in the spirit of his predecessors, and especially of 
Lambruschini, was simply an impossibility; but Pius had 
not the slightest inclination to do so. He saw a greater 
amount of disorder than he could cure; but he brought the 
purest motives, the most unbiassed will, and the most uncon- 
ditional self-devotion with his summons to the throne; and 
he avowed his mission to be that of a reformer in the govern- 
ment of the country, and a pacificator between the ruler 
and the ruled. In the firm belief that love alone can beget 
love, and beneficence gratitude, Pius commenced his reign 
with a comprehensive Amnesty. By so doing he freed him- 
self, in the most decided manner, from the mode and policy 
of administration hitherto pursued; but he also, at the same 
time, and by the same act, as Prince Metternich said, “ threw 
open the door of his house to the professional robbers”—he 
permitted the Radical Conspirators who had, until then, 
carried on their plots in foreign countries to make his own 
land the seat and centre of their manceuvres. In the purity, 
and in the moral nobility of his own disposition, Pius never 
hesitated, although he was not unaware as to the: conse- 
quences of what he had done. He held it to be his duty to 
grant the Amnesty, not only as a political act of conciliation, 
but also as a reparation for wrong that had been inflicted. 
The Prussian ambassador, Herr von Usedom, quotes the 
words spoken by the Pope on this topic: “To grant an 
Amnesty was not only a pelitical necessity, but it was like- 
wise my duty. The hatred which the old system had pro- 
duced against the Papacy must be assuaged; and in a word, 
the old must be retrieved by the new, and amends made for 
the past.” ! 

Pius conceived himself forced at last to carry into effect 
the promises that had been made in 1831. On the 23rd 
April, 1848, he declared in an Allocution to the Cardinals: 


1“ Politische Briefe und Characteristiken,” 1849, p. 254. 


410 LEGISLATIVE AND PRACTICAL REFORMS. 


“ That in the latter years of Pius VII. the Great Powers of 
Europe had represented to the Papal See that it could, in its 
civil government, create institutions which would be more in 
correspondence with the wishes of the laity.” At the same 
time, he supported himself altogether upon the Memorandum 
of the Powers in 1831, which had declared the introduction 
of Provincial Councils, and the admission of laymen to ad- 
ministrative and judicial offices, as vital questions for the 
Papal Government. His predecessors had done a few things 
in that direction, and had promised others; but their ordi- 
nances had neither corresponded with the desires of the 
Great Powers, nor had they given satisfaction, nor secured 
the public weal and tranquillity of the State.' 

Commissions were then established for an examination 
into the whole system of government, for an improvement 
in legislation, and for a more suitable classification of the 
various branches of the executive. The selection of Gizzi 
as Secretary of State met with general approval. The lay- 
ing down of railroads, which had been refused during the 
reign of Gregory, was now sanctioned. The Government 
permitted that in the same place where only a few months 
previously every word relating to political affairs must be 
suppressed, a political journal might be established, and that 
the wants and circumstances of the Papal Kingdom, as well 
as of all Italy, might be discussed. A Censorship-edict, de- 
claring the establishment of a Censorship College, was an 
improvement in the antecedent state of affairs, where every- 
thing had been left to the arbitrary judgment of a few 
monks. Now discussion upon scientific matters, contempo- 
rary chronicles, and questions upon agriculture and trade, 
were left free.’ 

The greatest joy was excited by a Decree of the 19th 
April, 1847, which announced a convocation of notables 
from the provinces to a State Consultation. A council of 
ministers was formed; Rome had a communal represeyta- 
tion; several other reforming decrees appeared, and the 


1 * Documenti,” i. 405. ? Coprt, ix. 78. 


POPULARITY OF PIUS IX. 411 


State Consultative Assembly met, and propounded moderate 
propositions. 

In a few weeks Pius became the idol of all Italians; and 
every voice gave utterance to the same language respecting 
him. His name was then a talisman! Nought was rightly 
done, but what was done by him! All hopes were centred 
in him, and he was hailed as the national hero of Italy! He 
was as their “ Priest King” to break the chains of the nation, 
and other governments would be forced to act in imitation 
of his example! “Then,” says Montanelli, “ was the pres- 
tige of the Pope the sole defensive bulwark between us and 
the arms of Austria.” ! 

Laymen and priests vied with each other in tendering 
their homage to the reforming Pope. “ Pius,” says Count 
Balbo,’ “is only now reigning for six weeks, and in that 
brief span of time has become the most active reformer in 
this eventful century. The great majority of ecclesiastics 
in the Papal States are thoroughly aware that it is only by 
such a course as this that the hatred of the town population 
against their entire order can be put an end to. It is hoped 
that the time has now for ever passed away, in which 
tribunals could be seen composed exclusively of priests con- 
demning to death or the galleys persons accused of political 
offences—and doing that, too, without affording to them the 
means of defending themselves.* 

That which was the feeling of all intelligent and religious 
Italians at the time, was no more than truly expressed by 
Count Cesare Balbo, when he addressed these noble lines to 
Pius :— 

“Tu non ci maledici! Tu sei figlio 
Di nostra eta, e l’intendi e la secondi: 


Perdura e avanza! a te bramando mirano 
Ormai due mondi. 


* * * * 


1 ** Memorie sull’ Italia,” ii. 180. ? “ Lettere,” p. 366. 
* Compare the letter of Poggi,to Saint-Aulaire, in Guatrerto, ‘‘ Docu- 
menti,” p. 273. 


412 DEMAND FOR NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. 


“Tu principe, tu padre, tu pontifice, 
Ogni Via gia t’ apristi, ogni speranza ; 
Ora dal volgo di color che dubbiano 
Ti scerni e avanza. 


And not only in Italy, but: in the whole Catholic world, 
there was universal joy, and Pius became the “ Amor et 
delicie generis humani.” The clergy in all countries, the 
religious Catholics, each and all were rejoiced that at last the 
reconciliation of the Roman See with the ideas of freedom 
amongst modern nations could be announced and ratified ; and 
that the stain could be wiped away which had been brought 
upon the whole order of the priesthood by the misdeeds and 
unpopularity of a clerocracy in the States of the Church.? 

It is well-known that, contemporaneous with the com- 
mencement of the reign of Pius 1X., the demand for national 
independence, and for a free Italy, arose from one end of the 
Peninsula to the other. ‘We will,” it was said, “be a 
nation; we shall possess the strength and dignity of a nation 
—our weight shall be felt in the scale of nations, and our im- 
portance in the world’s history; we will no longer be en- 
chained by the external interests of Transalpine powers.” 
The movement was no longer confined to the lodges of the 
secret societies—it prevailed over all Italy—it was felt by all 
the educated classes of society—it was participated in by all 
the higher and the middle ranks. All desired national inde- 
pendence—the overthrow of Austrian rule in Upper Italy— 
the abolition of Austrian supremacy in the whole peninsula: 
all longed for political freedom. 

Even in Rome those who were then about the Pope did 
not recoil from that universal spirit which then exhibited 
itself for shaking off the yoke of foreigners, as well as for the 
establishment of an Italian Kingdom; and jit is even reported 


m1 


1 Thou cursest us not! Thou art a son of our own age, and thou dost 
understand it, and thou helpest us. Hold fast, and—Onward! Two 
worlds now look with longing love upon thee. Thou Prince, thou 
Father, thou Pontiff—every path is open before thee, all hope is in thee. 
From the common crowd of doubters separate thyself, and—Onward ! 

? The applause bestowed upon the reforming Pope, especially by the 
French bishops, is worth remembering. 


THE “STATUTO FONDAMENTALE.” 413 


that Pius himself had given expression to these words: “ If 
victory should favour the army of Charles Albert, then was 
he himself ready with his own hand to crown him King of 
Upper Italy.!. One of Rosmini’s plans for the organization 
of an Italian Confederation met with the approval of the 
Pope. A Diet of all the Italian States in Rome should con- 
sult together, and determine upon war and_ peace, tolls, 
treaties of commerce, and other matters of common interest 
to them all. Rome would thus become the Frankfort of the 
Italian Confederation of States. 

But then came Rome to be oppressed by the disastrous 
machinations of political clubs (the Cireolo Romano), and of 
a civic guard, which soon proved itself to be here, as every- 
where else, inefficient, useless, and evil-disposed, when its 
services were required for the maintenance of order, and a 
protection to the Government. Radical demagogues inflamed 
and fanaticised the populace with endless street demonstra- 
tions, and the Government could no longer count in Rome 
upon obedience to its orders.2. Under the mask of public 
demonstration of respect and gratitude, the attempt was made 
to degrade the Pope into a tool of Mazzini, and to force him 
into a war against Austria. Pius was to be compelled, 
not merely to take a part in the war, but, as the first, the 
foremost herald of hostilities, to place himself at its head.’ 
The ministries, for the most part composed of laymen, 
rapidly succeeded each other in office. At the beginning of 
the year 1848, and when revolutions had already taken place 
in France and Sicily, appeared the ‘ Statuto Fondamentale” 
—a constitution, in the preamble to which Pius declared: 
“he would not less prize his people, nor show less confidence 
in them than had been done in neighbouring states, where 
the population had been regarded as sufficiently sagacious to 
be entrusted, not merely with a representation having the 
capacity to consult together, but also with power to resolve, 
and to have their decrees carried into effect. Such preroga- 


1 GroBeRTI, “* Rinnovamento civile d'Italia,” i. 210. Coprpt, x. 368. 


? RANALLt, “ Del riordinamento d'Italia,” 1859, p. 298. 
* Rana, “ Del riordinamento d'Italia,” p. 298. 


414 IMPERFECT POLITICAL EDUCATION. 


tives he would confide to two Chambers—one to be named by 
himself, and the other to be elected. As to those points not 
specified in this Statute, and in matters affecting religion 
and morals, he reserved for himself and his successors the full 
exercise of their sovereign authority.! 

There was an essential difference between the “ Statuto 
and any one of the modern constructed constitutional forms 
of Government. For there was still left the College of 
Cardinals, as a wholly independent corporation—one, too, in 
some measure participating in the sovereignty ; and it was to 
remain not only by the side of, but above both the Chambers. 
Thus there were, in effect, three deliberative assemblies. It 
was natural; perhaps, it was unavoidable, that the “Statuto” 
should be assented to by Pius. Still, as the result has 
shown, and as, indeed, it might easily have been recognised 
and foreseen, the people had been but insufficiently prepared 
or educated for a right use of the political functions bestowed 
upon them by the “Statuto.” What was beyond all things 
needed, and was indispensable for them to possess, was more 
of civil freedom in their dealings with officials—less subjec- 
tion to the arbitrary conduct and vexatious proceedings ot 
the. police—more practice and experience in municipal and 
provincial self-government. The preliminary conditions to 
normal constitutional life were altogether wanting. Beyond 
all things, there was required an absolute separation between 
lay and ecclesiastical powers and attributes. When, for 
instance, the Cardinal Vicar, who supplied the place of the 
Pope in his character of Bishop of Rome, had his police of 
morals, and when he, with his episcopal authority, exercised 
a civil jurisdiction, with his own tribunal and his own agents, 
it is not easy to perceive how such an institution could be 
maintained along with a representative government. How- 
ever much the representation of the people and their rights 
might be limited, and the powers of the government strength- 
ened, it is still inevitable that the mere existence of an 
Assembly, the creation of the free choice of the people, must 
give to the lay element a vast preponderance in the State, 

1 Copri, x. 183. 


” 





PROGRESS OF REVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES. 415 


over the clerical. And then this occurring when there was 
in the administration an inverse order of things prevailing— 
when the lay members were doomed to be stationary, were 
absolutely excluded from the higher offices, and made depen- 
dents upon clerical superiors—when such an absurdity as this 
was persisted in, a peaceful solution of all these difficulties 
was neither to be looked for nor expected, nor even thought 
of. At almost every Elected Assembly it was determined to 
withdraw from the clerical jurisdiction the powers exercised 
by it—to seek and find the means for the abolition of the 
Inquisition, of the civil jurisdiction of the Bishops, and the 
legalised immunities and privileges of the clergy. And yet 
it was a commission of the “ Prelati”—a commission from 
which all laymen were excluded—that devised the “Statuto;” 
and that same “Statuto” the College of Cardinals had, as it 
is known, upon the assurance of Pope Pius himself, unani- 
mously approved of.! Had the inevitable consequences of 
the “Statuto” been then foreseen ?—or was it determined to 
let a gradual change take place, when the declaration might 
be made that it had proved in operation to be absolutely 
objectionable? No one now can answer these questions. 
Soon afterwards the Censorship was made more stringent 
upon writings touching on theology and religion. Mean- 
while Rome had become the central point of the Mazzinists 
and Revolutionists; whilst it is to be remembered that the 
movements of 1831, 1843, and 1845, had left a burning 
flame beneath. their ashes.? The resistance of the Pope 
against a participation in the war against Austria was made 
use of to despoil him of all power, and to force upon him the 
revolutionary ministry of Mamiani. Then it was that the 
Pope’s new Minister, Pellegrino Rossi, formerly the French 
Ambassador, seized, with a strong hand, the reigns of govern- 
ment; and it seemed as if order would be restored, and the 
fast-advancing steps of revolution checked, when the heads 

1“ T/intero sagro Collegio vi ha convenuto di buon grado ed unani- 
mamente,” were the words of the Pope to the Roman municipality.— 


FarInt, ii. 5. 
2 RANA, ‘‘ Istorie Ital.,” i. 36. 


416 THE REPUBLIC. 


of the anarchical party, Sterbini, Ciceruacchio, and others, 
resolved upon, and carried into effect, the assassination of the 
man who was the most formidable opponent-of Unionism, 
and of a “one and indivisible Italian Republic.” Then fol- 
lowed the storm of the Quirinal, and the flight of the Pope 
to Gaeta. And this time, too, despite of the personal respect, 
and of the veneration for Pius IX., the Papal power in the 
whole country was easily overthrown. The utter incapacity 
of a population, of whom ninety-nine in every hundred had 
never, either before or after the Revolution, taken a book or 
newspaper in their hands, made the task attempted to be 
performed by the Triumvirate and their adherents much more 
easy of accomplishment. 

During the sixty-nine days of the Republic created by the 
Garibaldists and Mazzinists, the inhabitants of the Papal 
States must have drained to the very dregs the intoxicating 
cup of revolution. The birds of prey quickly gathered 
round the fallen body of the State, and the people were, 
under the name of a Democratic Republic, composed of the 
anarchists of every country, tyrannised over and despoiled 
by a plundering faction. Of “democratic speech-makers,” 
and of empty-headed chatterers, there was a superfluity ; but 
of all things else—a deficiency. ) 

When the French appeared, for the purpose of restoring 
the Pope, General Oudinot mentions what he then found to 
be the prevailing spirit amongst the population: “ There is 
for Pius LX. a personal affection entertained ; but everyone 
is afraid of a clerical government.”! He transferred the 
conquered city to the commissioners appointed by the Pope 
—Cardinals Dalla Genga, Vanicelli, and Altieri—on Ist 
August, 1849. It was not until the 4th April, 1850, Pius LX. 
made his entry into Rome. 

In the Allocution of the. 20th April, 1849, Pius declared 
that it never had been in his thoughts to change the nature 
and character of his government; that he had distinctly 

? That a vast majority of the population in Rome wished for the return 


of the Pope is a fact attested by an eye-witness, HELFFERICH, in his 
“« Briefen aus Italien,” ii. 56. 





COURSE OF PAPAL GOVERNMENT. 417 


pointed to the fact of the “Statuto,” with its representative 
constitution, as perfectly compatible with the character of 
the Papal sovereignty. But now came into the possession of 
power those who regarded the salvation of the State to 
consist in the speedy restoration of all that had been pre- 
viously overthrown. Even the Inquisition was revived; a 
“ moderate” party, such as there was in 1847, and on which 
the Pope might now, as then, rely for support, was declared 
to be no longer procurable. All who were around the Pope 
desired that the institutions and concessions of 1847 and 
1848 should be put anend to. Cardinal Antonelli go verned 
in this sense, as Secretary of State, and became the sole leader 
of the administration, whilst the other five ministers were but 
the first official servants of yovernment. Count Balbo had been 
sent to Gaeta, for the purpose of impressing, in the name of 
the Piedmontese Government, upon the Pope and his minister, 
the wisdom of holding fast by the “ Statuto ;” but his appeal 
proved to be of no avail.! Pius was convinced that the 
incorrigible would only make use of every concession that 
was granted to them to carry on their plots as enemies to 
all social order and positive religion. A restricted amnesty, 
with but a few, and these unavoidable, exceptions, was granted. 
By the institution of the “ Staats Consulta,” laymen had the 
right of giving an opinion upon domestic concerns ; but the 
decision upon them was reserved for the “ Prelati,’ in whose 
hands were again placed all the higher offices. The munici- 
palities, however, were promised a certain sort of independ- 
ence. The Communal Councils were to be chosen out of 
electoral bodies of Council men, sixfold in number to those 
nominated ; and the Pope reserved to himself the nomination 
of the first. 

For ten years (1849—1859) did the Government of the 
Papal States, supported by the Austrian occupation in the 
Romagna, and by the French in Rome and Civita Vecchia, 
pursue, upon the whole, a peaceful and equable course. 
Seldom, indeed, has a government begun and ended its 
wearisome day-work under such disheartening circumstances 

1 Ricorti, ‘‘ Vita del Balbo,” p. 273. 
EE 


418 RAYNEVAL’'S MEMORIAL. 


—surrounded on all sides by bitter, malignant, self-seeking, 
and skulking foes, and nowhere having a firm support, and 
in no one a cordial, steady, and reliable friend. - 

The Report of the French Ambassador, Count Rayneval, 
in the year 1856, defended, in most points, the Government 
of the Papal States, under the present Pope and Cardinal 
Antonelli, against the reproaches of the Italians, and the 
wide-spread opinion in England and France regarding them. 
The Report certifies that dissatisfaction and discontent con- 
tinue to prevail amongst the population; but the cause for 
this state of things “is to be sought,” it says, “not in the 
faults of the system of government, but in the defects of 
the national character,” and especially in the then existing 
situation and temper of the Italians. The English Envoy, 
Mr. Lyons, who was in Rome at the same time, has, in his 
Report, made frequent reference to Rayneval’s Memorial, 
which he maintains was drawn up in agreement with, and 
according to, the data supplied by the Papal Government, 
for the purpose of influencing the Paris Cabinet to favour 
the continuance of the French Protectorate, and to shew that 
the Pope ought not to be pressed to make changes in his 
mode of government. He disputes, in many points, the 
correctness of M. Rayneval’s representation. And, yet, both 
the one and the other, Rayneval and Lyons, coincide in some 
main points. Both give the assurance that no blame should 
be cast upon the existing Government for the general discon- 
tent and desire of the population for a change in the supreme 
authority over them. There are, as Mr. Lyons affirms, but 
two descriptions of men in the country; the first are 
unflinching, active, and irreconcileable enemies of the Go- 
vernment, whose watchword is, ‘“ No more government by 
priests!” These can never be won by reforms in particular 
matters; all they would do with every concession made to 
them would be to employ it as a weapon against the Govern- 
ment. Itis not reform, but the overthrow of the Government, 
that they aim at. The others are indifferent, tepid, unreliable, 
and, ina moment of danger, the Government would not find in 
them the slightest support. They would not lift a finger in aid 


RELATIONS OF GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE. 419 


of the assailed ruler. The supposition thus made by the Eng- 
lish Envoy was, in the year 1859, but too accurately verified, 
and too fully justified. Even the lower classes of the Papal 
employés were, as Mr. Lyons declares, notoriously disaffected 
to the Papal sovereignty,! and they were also described by 
him as being lazy and corrupt. 

There are two matters which must not be overlooked by 
any one who would pass a sound judgment upon the condition 
of the Papal States. The first is the reflection that those 
who are rulers are, essentially, of the population, and parti- 
cipate in the popular virtues as well as popular defects. A 
want of energy and activity cannot reasonably be made a 
matter of reproach against a Government, when in it is dis- 
cernible a national trait. Secondly: when once the fitting 
relations between a people and their Government become 
disturbed, then mutual confidence between them disappears, 
and a malcontent population is disposed to make their rulers 
responsible for all the wrongs and crimes of which they are 
themselves guilty, and which, whether they be sins of com- . 
mission or omission, are characteristic of them, as a nation. 
In what an extreme degree this is the case in the Papal 
States, has been remarked upon by Count Rayneval. The 
inhabitants of the Papal States are, in some respects, like to 
the Mexicans, of whom it has been said by a keen observer, 
lately arrived from that country, that “they blame the 
Government if their coat is torn!” This mode of reasoning 
in the Papal States, it must, however, in candour, be 
admitted, is the natural consequence of the tutorship system 
of government, which restricts both a discussion upon, anda 
participation in, public business. Hence, too, flows a fatal 
distrust. ‘ They dream,” says the French Ambassador, “ of 
naught else than dishonesty and extortion. They complain 
that the State does not engage in carrying out great under- 
takings, which, if it did, they would at once make those 
undertakings an object for their attacks.” ? 

1 Despatches from Mr. Lyons respecting the Condition and Adminis- 


tration of the Papal States.” London, 1860, p. 53. 
2 Allg. Zeitg.,” 1857, p. 1666. 


EE 2 


420 SECULARIZATION OF PUBLIC OFFICES. 


The first and most pressing problem of all, is that affecting 
the relation of the ecclesiastical and lay holders of govern- 
ment situations; or, in other words, the question of “the 
secularization of public offices.” Many hold this as being 
the most difficult to determine—as actually insoluble. It 
involves not merely the point that almost all the higher 
offices are in the hands of ecclesiastics, and that such offices 
are so regulated as to be inaccessible to laymen; but the 
Government says,! “That the Pope is an ecclesiastic, and 
that under the Pope, as sovereign, the direction of the 
administration must be essentially ecclesiastical. Besides 
that, we have only a very small number of laymen from 
whom we could make a selection, and the cities themselves 
(for instance, Orvieto and Camerino a short time previously) 
had desired to have ecclesiastics for their governors.” To 
this it was replied by laymen, and the ambassadors of 
foreign powers : “ The Government should be secularized, so 
that laymen of talent, honour, and ambition may have 
opened to them a path, and a hope of promotion, to the 
higher offices; and that it may thus plainly be made worth 
their while earnestly and seriously to prepare themselves for 
admission to the public service. So long as this is not the 
case, capable laymen will hold themselves aloof; laymen 
and ecclesiastics will be separated into hostile classes—and 
the former being constantly discontented, will wish for, 
and conspire to effect a change in, the form of the govern- 
ment. Moreover, situated as things now are, an accom- 
plished and independent-minded layman would find himself, 
upon all occasions, compelled to sacrifice his judgment to 
that of his ecclesiastical superiors—that which’ would be 
done by very few, and these not the most competent or 
reliable persons.” To these objections was to be added 
another, “that,” as a shrewd French observer remarked,? 
“the priests stand like sentinels, at the opening of every 


1 Cardinal Antonelli, in an interview with Mr. Lyons, ‘‘ Despatches,” 
p. 17. . 

2H. v. Merz-Nostat, in his ‘‘ Varia, Morale, Politique, Litérature.” 
Paris, 1861, p. 433. 


CESSATION OF CASTE GOVERNMENT. 421 


public career, to examine the candidate’s testimonials of 
piety, and fulfilment of ecclesiastic duties; for without 
these no one is permitted to enter the. Government service.” 

“ We will have,” declared an Italian, lately, “along with. 
the wished-for secularization in the Papal States, not merely 
the exclusion of priests from government offices, but also the 
cessation of a caste-government, and the establishment of 
equality in the temporal hierarchy, as well as a participation 
in the government of the country and the management of 
its affairs.”! 

Count Rayneval coincided in the view of the Government, 
for he directs attention to the fact “that the people exhibit 
towards the lay employés of the Government no marks of 
respect, and are much less tolerant of their superiority over 
them? in rank and position, than they are as regards ecclesi- 
astics. And such feeling is so much the more plainly 
recognisable in the fact that many more violent personal 
assaults have been made upon lay than upon ecclesiastical 
officials.” But he remarks, at the same time, that “the cry 
for a complete secularization of the Government is applauded 
by the people.” 

What we then see is this: a condition of circumstances 
in which they who are in reality “the people” are accus- 
tomed to find the ecclesiastical officers both more capable 
and less avaricious than the lay official subordinates; and 
then, even though they may be, in general, dissatisfied with 
the administration, still they are unwilling to speak against 
the “ Priest-Government.” On the other hand, the higher 
orders, that is, all those who believe that they themselves, or 
their kinsmen, have a claim to participate in the service of 
the State are discontented; they feel that they are excluded 
from office, and, therefore, demand that all situations and 
offices should be occupied by laymen. If this be laid down 
as a principle to be rigidly enforced, it is, in fact, an opening 
to the speedy secularization of the Papacy itself. On the 
other side, it is clear that if things remain as they now are, , 

t “ Rivista Contemp.,” viii. 470. — 
2 “ Denkschrift, Allg. Ztg.,” 1857, 17th April. 


422. ASSUMPTION OF ARBITRARY POWER. 


a reconciliation of the two classes, and consequently a peace-— 
ful and beneficent maintenance of the Papal States, is scarcely 
to be hoped for. The disproportion lies, however, not so 
much in the number as in the outrageous contrast of social 
positions—the disparity complained of makes the clerical a 
governing, and the lay a subordinate class; it appears in 
public and private personal conflicts between a layman and 
an ecclesiastic, for it places every advantage within the reach 
of the latter, and renders the defeat of the former almost a 
matter of certainty. In other countries, we see ecclesiastics 
and laymen in the same description of employment standing 
well and amicably, as well as working harmoniously together; 
as, for instance, in Universities and Gymnasia, and as 
employés of the Government. Such a state of things would 
also be attainable in the Papal States, if the conditions were: 
*‘ Equality of rights and of duties, free competition—acces- 
sibility to official life—the capability and suitableness of the 
individual, but not the paramount privileges of the class in 
society to which he may belong.” 

There is another difficulty to be found in the want of a 
rigid conformity to law. From the reports received on all 
sides, a person must feel convinced that one of the greatest 
defects in the condition of the Papal States is to be found in 
the want of conformity to Jaw. There is unknown there the 
peaceful, firm, and, for rulers and for ruled alike, the equal— 
binding and unapproachable sanctity of law. There is too 
much confided to the power, and too much is made dependent 
upon the wilfulness, of particular officials. It is remarked by 
Mr. Lyons, “ that the Court of Rome .. . . shows an ex- 
traordinary disregard to laws and forms in its dealings with 
its subjects, and seems almost always to assume an arbitrary 
power to act in each matter according to the circumstances 
of the moment.”! There is an instance of a governor de- 
claring “that, for want of proofs, the accused could not be 
convicted, but still he should be punished with imprisonment 
for eight days, upon bread and water.”* And then there was 


1 “ Despatches,” p. 61. See Acurrre, p. 124. 
*  Documenti, sul Gov. pontif.,” ii. 580. 


CONSTITUTIONALISM AND THE PAPACY. 423 


Cardinal Bernetti, the Secretary of State, who declared, with 
respect to an individual against whom there were not suffi- 
cient proofs, “that upon his first transgression he should 
receive, in addition to whatever might be the legal punish- 
ment of his offence, five years hard labour.”! This exercise 
of an arbitrary power, this licentiousness on the part of the 
Administration and the authorities, who, on every occasion, are 
prepared to evade the law, has been branded by Count Ray- 
neval, when he declares, “ L’ interprétation de la loi ’emporte 
sur la loi elle-méme.” The mischief is, that a sound political 
life can scarcely be developed when a government is carried 
on in this manner. The example of those in power renders 
it impossible for a people who live under the constant im- 
pression of arbitrary proceedings to have a due respect and 
reverence for the objective power, the law; on the contrary, 
the idea will gain ground with them that men in such a 
country are not the subjects of the law, but of the individual 
caprice of a certain number of persons, whose conduct is in- 
fluenced by their passions and the interests of their order.” 
It is perfectly manifest that “ constitutionalism,” as it is or- 
dinarily understood and acted upon, could not be applied to 
the States of the Church. It would not be tolerated that a 
warlike faction could, by refusing the supplies, force the 
Pope, “the supreme shepherd of nations,” to go to war with 
a Christian power, as they sought to compel him to declare 
war against Austria. The Pope must be in possession of a 
real and not a nominal sovereignty, so that he may be seen, 
as well as seem to be, in his ecclesiastical power and actions, 
fully and completely free. It can be a matter of not the 
slightest import, if he is under coercion, whether that coercion 
be exercised by a foreign power, or by a haughty and de- 
spotic parliamentary majority. But such a sovereignty, and 
a clerical-bureaucratic omnipotence tutoring everybody, and 
intermeddling with and managing everything, are two con- 
ditions of government as wide asunder from each othér as 
the two poles. The autocratic sovereignty of the Pope is 
compatible with a participation of the people in legislation, 
1 “ Documenti,” ii. 595. 2 Marsuzi de Aguirre, p. 166. 


424 ELECTORAL SYSTEM. 


the autonomy of corporations, a moderate freedom of the . 


press, and the separation of religion from the police. For- 
merly, it was Austria and the different Governments in Italy 
that were subjected to the guidance of Austria, that had, 
under the pretence that the principle of popular elections 
was irreconcileable with due order in their States, opposed 
the adoption of elective Provincial and Municipal Councils.' 
In accordance with the Motu Proprio of 1850, these elections 
were to take place, and the French defenders of the Papal 
See, Montalembert and .De Corcelle, have appealed to the 
fact. The Italians reply: “That the Electoral system of 
Municipal and Provincial Councils is good in theory, but 
that Cardinal Antonelli had, in a circular of 29th April, 
1854, ordered the Electoral Colleges not to be called to- 
gether.2, The Government could cite in its justification the 
remark of the English diplomatist, that it must conduct it- 
self in accordance with the law of self-preservation ; for, as 
he remarks, “ the natural unwillingness of the Government to 
allow its own enemies a place in them” (the Communal 
Councils) “is unfortunately sufficient to exclude in many 
districts the men otherwise best qualified.”* In fact, the 
number is far too great, as the British diplomatist says, of 
those in whose eyes “ the standard of value for a scheme of 
reform is the means it would supply for throwing off the 
yoke of the Holy See.” These are the persons who “ would 
be sorry to have fewer causes of complaint—sorry for any- 
thing which would diminish the extent or the intenseness of 
disaffection.””* 

Another circumstance, and one of far too common occur- 
rence, has contributed to the contempt into which the Go- 
vernment has fallen with its own subjects, by increasing the 
conviction that they live under a pure despotism; and that 
circumstance is the promulgation of laws which are after- 
wards permitted to remain a dead letter.” 

? GaLgormt, ‘ Della sovranit’ dei Papi,” 1846, p. 339. See remarks 
of H. v. Ecxsrery, ‘“ Allg. Zeitung,” April, 1860, p. 1803. 

? Farin, in the ‘‘ Rivista Contempor.,” 1857, ix. 19. 


§ Lyons, ‘‘ Despatches,” p. 19. * Lyons, ‘* Despatches,” p. 20. 
5 Particular attention has been attracted towards this point by the 


oe 


THE INQUISITOR AIRALDI’S EDICT. 425 


The Pope himself has long since admitted that an intel- 
lectually-gifted and extremely energetic people like the 
Italians could not endure the suppression of all public dis- 
cussion, and an exclusion from all active participation in 
public life; that their impulsive activity required that there 
should be beds and channels into which it might be poured, 
and then, within due and prescribed limits, it might flow on 
beneficially. That by the side of public deliberative assem- 
blies there should be a rigid preventive censorship prohibit- 
ing all discussions, as well as that there should be maintained 
certain institutions and privileges which have long since dis- 
appeared out of every other part of the world—that the 
duration of these contradictions could be prolonged is an 
impossibility. And hence concessions are refused by those 
who are for perpetuating the old systems, and who, as it has 
often been repeated, labour their very utmost to prevent the 
establishment of elective and consultative colleges, although 
in so doing they are acting contrary to the wish of the Pontiff, 
and inflicting pain upon him.!' They who act thus well know 
that the chimney cannot be left stopped up once a fire is 
kindled on the hearth. 

In the year 1856, the Inquisitor, Airaldi, issued a long 
Edict, in which, under a threat of the severest censures, he 
called for the denunciation of every ecclesiastical and reli- 
gious offence that might be known by anyone to have been 
committed by others—he declared it to be the bounden duty 
of such to make certain sins known; as, for instance, a maid- 
servant incurred excommunication and became liable to pun- 
ishment, if she neglected to inform the Inquisition of anyone 
in the house in which she lived having eaten meat on a 
Friday or a Saturday evening! All the newspapers’—the 


anonymous Italian author of ‘‘ Mémoires du Comte Aldini,” in the 
‘* Revista Contemp.,” viii. 469. 

1 The author of an article in the ‘‘ Rivista Contemp.,” 1856, viii. 470, 
maintained, upon what he said was the best authority, that Pius himself 
complained of the conduct of the Government then existing. 

2 It was first brought to notice in the ‘‘ Correspondance Italienne 
lithographiée,” 19th October, 1856. 


(426 PUBLIC OPINION ON THE PAPAL QUESTION. 


“Siecle” leading the van—instantly got possession of this do- 
cument, and it was printed in full. What commentaries 
were made upon it in France, England, and Italy !—what 
inferences were drawn from it as to the character of the 
Papal Government, and what little hope of reform to be 
looked for from it! Of all this it is not now necessary to 
say a word. The numberless enemies of the Papal See could 
scarcely be tendered a more welcome gift. The hope, how- 
ever, was entertained that something might be done to 
remove the impression caused by this circumstance. One 
journal brought the intelligence that Airaldi had been re- 
moved from his office, but the “ Ecclesiastical Journal,” pub- 
lished in Rome, instantly contradicted that statement, and 
declared that “ Airaldi had only done his duty!” 

It would seem, in point of fact, as if persons in the narrow 
circles at Rome had either no precise notion, or some idea 
far removed from the truth, as to the gigantic powers of 
“ journalism,” and of that “ public opinion” which is formed 
through or reflected by journalism. Every one who is ac- 
quainted with the present condition of Europe, and the rela- 
tions between existing powers, is well aware that three such 
events as the case of Achilli, the Edict of Airaldi (and others 
antecedent to and like it), and the affair of Mortara, have 
weighed more in the balance, on the question of the Papal 
States, than a battle lost or won. The question here is, not 
how each of these circumstances should be judged of by its 
intrinsic merits, but in what manner they contributed to in- 
fluence an irresistible public opinion in Europe. At present, 
all are living in glass houses, and it is not sufficient to treat 
with governments, for behind them are the peoples upon 
whose fixed opinions depend the resolutions of those in au- 
thority. How unfavourable in Italy, in England, in the 
greatest part of France, Germany, etc., is public opinion, for 
the continuation of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope, 
every one, who will only make use of his own eyes, can but 
too plainly discern. 

It cannot appear to be a matter much to be wondered at, 

1 The * Civiltaé Cattolica,” in its number of 20th December, 1856. 


HOSTILE SPIRIT OF THE POPULATION. ~ 427. 


that, wherever the co-operation of laymen is needed in Rome, | 
all should go wrong, and that the Government (as all the 
foreign diplomatists testify) should nowhere find a support in 
the population. At great cost, and with inexpressible diffi- 
culty, there was incorporated anew, in 1850, a small Papal 
native army; but the events of 1859 shattered into pieces 
this instrument, and destroyed this hope. The facts proved 
that these troops were completely untrustworthy, and recourse 
was unavoidably had to foreign soldiers. 

Prelati and Delegati were constantly sending in reports of 
the systematically hostile spirit of the population—of their 
dogged repugnance to enlist in the Papal military service—of 
their refusal to undertake any communal office which would 
bring them in contact with the Government, and render it 
necessary for them to carry out its orders. The Delegato 
Folicaldi wrote from Ferrara, in the year 1849: “ The 
Liberals say, ‘ The Austrian rather than the Papal,’ only for 
the purpose of expressing their hatred against the Papal 
Government.”! From Bologna, the Prelato Bedini wrote to 
say that he could only discover a few persons who would 
undertake the office of “Censor.” It was the same at Ra- 
venna and Ferrara. At Faenza, no one would accept of any 
kind of office; and the Delegato Lasagna, writing from 
Cesena, 1858, says: “In this district there are only a few 
persons well disposed towards the Government.” ? 

Nevertheless, the administration of Pius IX. is wise, bene- 
volent, indulgent, thrifty, attentive to useful institutions 
and improvements. All that proceeds from Pius [X., person- 
ally, is worthy of the Head of the Church—it is elevated and 
liberal in the best sense of the term. No sovereign spends 
less on his Court, and his own private wants. If all thought 
and acted as he does, his would be a model State. Both the 
French and the English envoys affirm that the financial 
administration had improved, that the value of land was in- 
creasing, agriculture flourishing, and that many symptoms of 
progress might be observed.? 


1 Tyocumenti,” i. 57. 2 * Documenti,” i. 210. 
* Lyons, ‘* Despatches,” p. 54. 


428 CHARACTER OF PIUS IX. 


Whatever can be expected of a monarch full of affection 
for his people, and seeking his sole recreation in works of 
beneficence, Pius abundantly performs. “ Pertransiit bene- 
faciendo.” These words have been spoken of One, far, 
far higher, and yet, when applied to Pius, they are but the 
simple truth. In him, we can clearly perceive how the 
Papacy, even as a temporal State, might, so far as the cha- 
racter of the Prince is concerned, through judicious elections, 
be the most admirable of human institutions. A man in the 
prime of life, after an irreproachable youth, and a conscien- 
tious discharge of episcopal duties, is elevated to the highest 
dignity and sovereign power. He knows nothing of expen- 
sive amusements, he has no other passion than that of doing 
good, no other ambition than to be beloved by his subjects. 
His day is divided between prayer and the labours of govern- 
ment; his relaxation is a walk in the garden, a visit to a 
church, a prison, or a charitable institution. Free from per- 
sonal desires and from terrestial bonds, he has no relations 
and no favourites to provide for. For all, there is: the like 
claim, and the like access to him. For him, the rights and 
powers of his office exist only for the sake of its duties. 
His abstinent and thrifty palace-expenditure affords to him 
abundant means to relieve want and mitigate suffering on all 
sides. He, too, like most of the Popes, has had buildings 
erected; yet his are not splendid palaces, but works of 
general utility. Grievously outraged, maltreated, repaid 
with ingratitude, he has never harboured a thought of re- 
venge, never committed an act of severity, but ever forgiven 
and ever pardoned. ‘The cup of sweetness and of bitterness, 
the cup of men’s favour and disfavour, he has not merely 
tasted, but drained to its very dregs; he has heard, too, the 
ery of “ Hosanna!” and he has heard it soon followed by 
the ery of “Crucify him!” The man of his confidenee, 
yea! the first great mind of his nation, had fallen beneath 
the dagger of the assassin; and the bullet of an insurgent 
struck down the friend by his side. And yet no feeling of 
hatred, no breath of anger, could ever obscure, even for a 
moment, the spotless mirror of his soul. Untouched by 





EFFORTS TO MISLEAD PUBLIC OPINION. 429 


human folly, unmoved by human malice, he proceeds with a 
firm and regular pace on his way, like to the stars in heaven. 

Such I have seen the action of this Pope in Rome—such 
it has been described to me by all, whether near him or afar; 
and if he now seems to be appointed to pass through all the 
painful and discouraging experience that can befall a monarch, 
and to continue, to the end, the course of a prolonged martyr- 
dom, he resembles in this—as in so many other things—the 
Sixteenth Louis; or rather, to ascend still higher, he knows 
that the disciple is not above the Master, and that the pastor 
of a Church, whose Lord and Founder died upon the Cross, ° 
cannot marvel and cannot refuse—that the Cross should be 
laid upon him also. 

At present, the utmost efforts are made, in Italy and 
France especially, to mislead public opinion. One Italian 
after another comes forward to show that the Papal See is, 
according to the principles on which it is based, not in a 
condition to comply with the demands which the genius 
of the age, and the prevailing tendencies in social and 
political life, make upon those who are in authority. The 
same has been maintained by the English Minister, Gladstone, 
in the British Parliament, in the year 1856, and ever since 
then.! The Pope, it is said, is, as a Sovereign of the Church 
States, bound by the Canon Law, and, therefore, fettered 
down to the conditions and legal customs of the Middle Ages. 
Hence, it is said that, as there has been a complete change 
effected in all the relations of civil life, it is manifestly im- 
possible that a people of the nineteenth century can be ruled 
by the principles of the thirteenth; and so the temporal 
sovereignty of the Pope is a contradiction in itself—a perma- 
nent state of war, that can only be maintained by force of 
arms; and hence it is doomed—whether sooner or later—to 


die! All the friends of the Church, and of the Papal See, 


1 See the work of MontTanettt, “ L’Impero, il Papato, e la demo- 
crazia,” Florence, 1859. The essays of MrnGHeLui, VAIN, and of an 
anonymous writer, ‘* Patrizio Romano,” in the ‘“ Rivista Contemporanea,” 
1861; the treatise of GENNARELLI, ‘‘I Lutti dello Stato Romano,” 
1860, and several others. 


430 ELASTICITY OF THE PAPACY. 


are called upon to oppose such an opinion; for it is only that 
which, according to the Catholic doctrine, is of Divine Insti- 
tution, and what is essential for all times and unchangeable, 
to which the Pope is bound. 

Happily, the sovereignty of the Pope’ is of a very elastic 
nature, and it has already gone through many different forms. 
If a comparison be instituted between the use which the 
Popes made of their sovereignty in the thirteenth or 
fifteenth century and the form of government which 
Consalvi introduced, it will be seen that few things could 
exhibit a stronger contrast with one another. There is 
no reason, therefore, to doubt that it will now, after a violent 
interruption, assume the form best adapted to the character 
of the age and the requirements of the Italian people. Let 
it be but seen that the Papal Government possesses a vast 
advantage over all other forms of sovereignty ; and instantly 
the people will willingly again place themselves under the 
dominion of the Papacy. What is there to prevent us from 
thinking that a state of circumstances may arise in which, 
when elections to the Papal dignity occur, the persons chosen 
shall no longer be decrepit, aged individuals, but men in the 
prime of their years and their strength—a period, too, in 
which the people shall be reconciled to their government by 
free institutions, and share in the conduct of their own con- 
cerns—whilst the upper classes. are satisfied by the opening 
of a suitable career in public affairs? In such a condition of 
circumstances, the public and speedy administration of justice 
would win the confidence of the people; an honourable 
esprit du corps, a feeling of self-respect, and a pride in their 
integrity, and inthe dignity of the class to which they belonged, 
would animate the Government employés ; the hostile separa- 
tion between ecclesiastics and laity would be put an end to, 
by an equality in their privileges and their duties; the police 
would no longer prop themselves up by religious means, 
and religion would no longer hobble like a cripple, and rely 
for support upon the crutches of a policeman. The Pope 
and his territory could then be placed under the protection 
of the Catholic Powers—the same Powers that have guaran- 


A RIGHTFUL REQUISITION. 431 


teed the neutrality of Belgium and Switzerland. The Great 
Powers that have become security for the integrity of the 
wretched, self-collapsing empire of the Turk, could also 
shield the dominions of the Pope. Defended by such a 
buckler, and the ruler over a peaceful, contented people, the 
Pope’s hands would be completely free. The barriers to 
material and intellectual intercourse which have until now 
maintained, by an unnatural separation, different portions 
and districts of Italy apart from each other, would then be 
thrown down. International affinities and certain free ad- 
missibilities, such as are enjoyed by University professors in 
Germany, might leave open to the ambitious in their own 
land a career for employment in the civil and military service 
in other parts of Italy. The Pope would have no enemies to 
fear, either at home or abroad ; his subjects would be released 
from the detested conscription; the State-budget would be 
without the burden of army estimates, and for the mainte- 
nance of public security all that would be required would be 
a few brigades of a Gendarmerie. For the execution of 
works of general necessity sufficient funds would not be 
wanting. 

And this is no vain, empty fancy-sketch. Abstracting 
those misfortunes and faults which every one of good will, 
and right intentions, and unprejudiced feeling will admit to 
be curable, and supposing that peace and order prevail in Italy, 
then might the Government of the Papal States be a model 
Government—a pattern worthy of imitation by all other 
States and administrative authorities. That it should be 
such a pattern for others has not only been declared by 
Tommaseo, but also by the Bishop of Orleans, whose work 
has been declared by the Pope himself to be the best of all 
that have appeared in defence of the sovereignty of the 
Papacy. Even he (the Bishop of Orleans) marks it as a 
rightful requisition, that the lands of the Church should be 
more prosperous and better governed than others, and that 
their people should be more contented with their lot than any 
other population.! Monseigneur Diipanloup likewise an- 


1 “Si la perfection doit se rencontrer sur la terre quelque part, ce doit 


432 FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. 


nounces that those who, “under the pretence of dogmas, main- 
tain that the Pope cannot put his Government in harmony with 
modern times and the legitimate wishes of the people, are persons 
who thereby declare the destruction of the Papal power to be 
unavoidable.” Let it nowbe considered what high authoritative 
approval the book has received in Rome which contains these 
words, and there will then be found that they are full of hope 
and of cheering promise. 

There are persons now in Italy who urge, as regards the 
temporal sovereignty of the Pope, a pressing difficulty, and 
which they declare to be insoluble. It is a perfect freedom 
of religious worship.! They say: Religious freedom in a 
double sense—freedom for all religion, and freedom to choose, 
and openly profess and practise a form of religion different 
from that which is the predominant faith as well as the creed 
of the majority of the nation. This is a requirement from 
which no state in Europe will dissent. The principle has 
been introduced into other parts of Italy; but the Pope will 
never permit it. 

I regard this assumed difficulty as insignificant—that is, 
that it has already practically been solved, or is still in 
process of solution. Life, that concrete actuality, with its 
unavoidable demands, is accustomed to cut through those knots 
which to many have seemed inextricably involved. Attempts 
have already been made in the States of the Church, as in so 
many other places, by gold and eloquence, to win proselytes 
to Protestantism. Hitherto, these efforts have proved 
fruitless.2 But admitting it had been otherwise, and that in 
reality several conversions had taken place, would it then have 
been in the power of those in authority to employ any means 
of punishing the converts, and, above all, to maintain a last- 


étre dans les états delEglise. J’admets cette exigence comme un hom- 
mage involontaire qui nous honore, et avec lequel nous devons compter.” 
—‘ La Souveraineté Pontificale,” 1860, p. 570. 

1 MonTANELLI, “ L’Impero, il Papato, e la Democrazia in Italia,” 1859, 
p- 29. 

2See on this subject, Oppo, ‘* L’Independenza, il Cattolicismo, e 
l'Italia,” 1859, p. 34. 


PROTESTANTISM IN ITALY. 433 


ing coercion as regarded them? We all know thoroughly 
well to what a high state of perfection the art is carried now- 
a-days of putting a pressure upon an unpopular government— 
how it works through the medium of diplomacy, or by agita- 
tion, or by open attacks in the press, and by speeches in 
Parliament—until its power may at last be compared to that 
of an armed intervention, and its final success is inevitable. 
It is notorious that the case of the Jew boy Mortara has 
been to the enemies of the Church and of the Roman See 
one of the most welcome circumstances that could have 
occurred, and they have known how to make a large capital 
out of it. But if the event were now to occur that an 
Italian, having become a convert to Protestantism, were to 
be denounced to the Inquisition, and imprisoned by that 
tribunal, &c.—what would be the consequence? A cry of 
indignation would be raised from Norway to Sicily—news- 
papers, popular meetings, Parliaments and Chambers, would 
occupy themselves with the affair—a powerful agitation, such 
as we have witnessed with respect to the Florentine Madiais, 
would be renewed and brought before the world in still more 
huge dimensions; and certain Powers, which it is needless 
for us to name, would seize with delight upon the pretext 
thus afforded them to rob the Pope of all that still remains to 
him of his temporal sovereignty. And where are the hands 
that in such a circumstance would be raised in defence of the 
Pope? There is now much talk of the introduction of 
Protestantism into Italy. Should this talk become a reality, 
and Protestantism gain a strong position, and have an 
influence upon ideas and feelings in Italy, then would most 
assuredly the situation of the Papal See be, in an incal- 
culable manner, embarrassed, and the reconciliation of the 
Pope with the popular spirit be rendered, perhaps, an impos- 
sibility. But nothing practical will ever come of such a 
movement. Even in the century when Protestant ideas 
possessed their greatest strength, and had attained their 
mightiest powers of attraction—and when they were in the 
north of Europe truly popular, and dominated over the minds 
and hearts of all—even then Protestantism in Italy was only 
FE 


434 PROTESTANT TESTIMONY OF ITALIANS. 


thought of by a few scholars and ecclesiastics; whilst the 
people were never seriously affected by it. The peculiar Pro- 
testant spiritual testimony of Italians, and the contingent which 
they, on behalf of Italy, gave to the religious movement of 
the sixteenth century was—Socinianism! It is not to be 
expected that the ideas which three hundred years ago, in all 
their youthful freshness, had such mighty attractions for 
mankind, and yet whose ardent power was wholly lost upon 
the Italians, will, at this period of the world’s history, be able 
to make any considerable impression upon the people of Italy 
—even though they come recommended by the influence of 
the Piedmontese Government and the enticements of English 
coin. “The Italians,” said to me a man of whom all Tus- 
cany is proud, a few years since in Florence, “can never be 
made believing Calvinists or Lutherans. All that these 
English and German labours will, or can, ever be able to 
effect is this—that a number of persons will be estranged 
from all religions, and plunged into infidelity. With us, 
Protestantism can never be anything more than a power of 
destructiveness, and the founder of social disorders and dis- 
sensions.! 

So has the English preacher, S. W. King, who visited 
Italy in the year 1858, likewise admitted that the labours 
(which had been richly supported by English money) of the 
Waldenses, and other preachers of Protestantism in Italy, 
had for the most part proved to be ineffective; that in Pied- 
mont, where there had been the greatest exertions, Protes- 
tantism had made but little progress; and that outside the 
Valleys of the Waldenses there were not 1,000 Protestants in 
the whole kingdom.’ It astonished him to find the opponents 
of the Church able to quote quite glibly passages from 


1“ Tn the same spirit speaks.”—GruriA, “Silvio Pellico e il suo 
tempo,” 1854, p. 81. 

2 The Italian Vallies of the Pennine Alps ;” London, 1858. See 
Grac, Oppo, ‘ L’Indépendenza, il Cattolicismo e I’Italia,” 1859, p. 40. 
He holds that the notion, that Protestantism can ever become a power in 
Italy, is absolutely groundless and absurd. Such, too, is the opinion of 
MaAssIMo D’AZEGLIO. 


REFORM OF THE PAPAL SEE. 435 


the Bible against the Catholic religion, whilst they showed 
that they themselves had no faith in the Bible, nor in the 
passages they cited !—a circumstance that is quite intelligible 
to those well acquainted with Italian affairs. Recently, too, 
at a meeting of “the Protestant Alliance,” at Geneva, the 
paid agents of “the Alliance,” the Messrs. Bert, Valette, 
and Mazarella, felt it necessary to let down, in a very 
modest, moderate style, the high hopes that had been enter- 
tained of the glorious consequence to follow from “the 
Gospel in Italy,” and to admit to an audience hungering for 
far different tidings, that, as yet—there had, in reality, very 
little been done! 

The French Government has proposed, over and over again, 
to the Papal Administration, both general and particular 
reforms. Even Austria, in the year 1859, declared herself 
ready again to take up the negotiations with the Papal 
Government for reforms, which had been entered upon, in 
1857, by France, and subsequently abandoned,! or to make 
new representations on the same subject at Rome. The 
Roman Cabinet has, upon its part, never absolutely rejected 
these reforms. On the contrary, in the year 1860, it stated 
“that the Holy See regarded the question of reforms as one 
that was in principle conceded, but maintained its right to 
postpone the announcement of them until it was again put 
in possession of those provinces belonging to it which had 
been annexed by Sardinia.”? At an early period, the Pope 
had declared that he was ready to introduce the reforms pro- 
posed by the Great Powers, but under the stipulation (as well 
as an unavoidable condition) that the integrity of the Papal 
States should be guaranteed. This was refused in Paris; 
and by that refusal may be measured the candour, sincerity, 
and fair-dealing involved in the proposed demand made for 
reforms. With this, also, is combined another matter, made 
known by Lord John Russell’s declaration in Parliament, and 
the knowledge of which will astonish no one—namely, “that 

1 ‘* Malmesbury Correspondence,” p. 155. 


* Report of the Duke of Grammont, 14th April, 1860. “ Allg. Ztg.,” 
1861, p. 718. 


FF 2 


436 LAMENTABLE SITUATION. 


the Courts of Vienna and Madrid had tendered a proposal in 
Paris, that the affairs of the Papal States should be made 
the subject of a united consultation and decision; but, in 
Paris, this proposal had been declined, under the pretence 
that, in the arrangements of the Vienna Peace, with respect 
to the Papal States, England, Prussia, and Sweden had 
been participators ”'—an expression that sounds very like a 
mockery, considering all the circumstances that have occurred 
of late years; and what things have been contrived between 
Paris and Turin, in which, most assuredly, the opinion of 
Prussia or of Sweden was never asked for. And then, 
almost at the very time that those events became known, 
the Pope was compelled to have solicitations made at Paris, 
“that France should not hasten the withdrawal of the troops 
in occupation of Rome.”? In regarding a situation so very 
lamentable as this, one feels sorely tempted to wish that a 
crisis might come—even though it be in the form of a 
catastrophe—but still one that might, at least, put a stop to 
the continuation of such ceaseless sorrows, combined with 
such deep humiliations. 

From the facts of the immediate past can probabilities 
as to fast-coming events be clearly surmised. The Ro- 
magna, which, in 1846, desired to be annexed to Tuscany, 
wished, in 1859, upon the withdrawal of the Austrian gar- 


1“ Weekly Register ;” London, June 22, 1861. [The precise words used 
by Lorp Jonn Russe t are thus reported in ‘* Hansard”: ‘“ I have re- 
ceived a communication from the French Ambassador in London, inform- 
ing me that a proposal has been made to the French Goverrment by the 
Austrian and Spanish Ambassadors in Paris, in general terms, that the 
Roman Catholic Powers should act in concert with regard to the 
temporal power of the Pope. There was no mention of armies, 
or of protecting by arms the temporalities of the Pope. It was a 
general proposal, and to that proposal an absolute negative was 
given by the Government of France. I may, perhaps, state that the 
ground on which the proposition was refused was, that the general 
arrangements with regard to the temporalities of the Pope were settled 
at Vienna by Great Britain, Prussia, and Sweden, as well as by the 
Roman Catholic powers.” —Hansarp’s ‘“* Parliamentary Debates” (third 
series), vol. clxiii., pp. 1327, 1328. June 20, 1861.] 

2“ Allg. Ztg.,” 1861, 25th June, p. 2872. 


“THE POPE AND THE CONGRESS.” 437 


rison, to become Piedmontese; and 121 Deputies—one half 
of them consisting of nobles—voted unanimously for annexa- 
tion to Piedmont. The French Emperor, too, wrote to the 
Pope:' “That the Legations could now only be retained in 
obedience to the Papal See by means of a prolonged military 
occupation; and that this could give rise only to a continual 
state of rancour, discontent, and fear. The Pope, therefore, 
would, for the sake of the peace of Europe, make a sacrifice 
in the loss of those Provinces.” The same motive can be 
made equally available, whenever the moment may come, 
when the Pope will be required to renounce his sovereignty 
over the remainder of his territories. “There is,” said 
Napoleon III., in another letter to the Pope, “an inexorable 
logic in facts.” 

Shortly afterwards appeared in Paris the well-known 
pamphlet, “The Pope and the Congress,” of which it was 
said by Lord John Russell, “that it had stripped the Pope 
of more than the half of his dominions.” It proposed “to leave 
to the Head of the Church the city of Rome and a garden.” 
At the same time, however, Cavour said in his Parliament, 
_ at Turin, that this was the demand of Italy—viz.: “Rome 
is precisely the very thing that we want; and Rome we 
must have, as the capital of our kingdom.” 

The conduct pursued was utterly unprecedented. The 
Pope was required to disarm his own troops, at the very 
moment that his territories were overrun with foreigners, and 
his subjects called upon by them to take up arms. Without any 
Declaration of War against him, his dominions were invaded, 
an Ultimatum was presented to him, his little band of soldiers 
was overwhelmed with an army ten times their own in number; 
and at the same time furious proclamations were issued, threat- 
ening with death and extermination “the Papal hordes”— 
and then! Cavour declared (11th October, 1860), in Par- 
liament, “that all these memorable circumstances are 
the necessary results of our policy for the last twelve 
years!!!” 

What are to be the guarantees for this (Sardinian) Go- 

’ The letter is published in the *‘ Moniteur,” 11th January, 1860. 


433 ROME AND PIEDMONT. 


vernment? Would it not itself deride the credulity of those 
who placed faith in its promises? It will remain consistent 
with its character. It unites the shameless tyranny of a 
Convention, and the impudent sophistry of a Government 
of advocates, with the ruthless brutality ofa military despotism. 
Far more secure could Pius feel upon the Turkish soil, and 
in his dealings with the Sultan, than in the neighbourhood 
of the Piedmontese beast of prey, or in the power of a 
Ricasoli, or a Ratazzi, or, above all, of those lawyers and 
literati, those land-plagues that, with trumpery, pompous 
rhetoric, and hollow-sounding phrases, are now—and mayhap 
for some little tine longer—may be permitted to swim upon 
the surface of society. (Rather than trust to these) Pius 
may imitate the example of the great Popes of the twelfth 
century. They, confiding in the spiritual power of the 
Papacy, have sought for and found, on the other side of the 
Alps, that freedom and independence which were denied to 
them in Italy. Germany, Belgium, Spain, the Ionian Islands, 
Catholic Switzerland—he can select any one of these he 
chooses, certain that his arrival will be greeted by a joyful 
and reverential population, in the midst of whom he will find | 
full freedom of action. 

If Piedmont, with the connivance of France, should 
wrest from the Papacy Rome, and the remainder of the 
Papal States, then will the rightful possession of them by 
the Pope be interrupted, but not abolished. The Papacy has 
seen many monarchies created, and then dissolved into atoms. 
The See of St. Peter will outlive the Kingdom of Italy, and 
many other sovereignties. It can, with patience, wait: 
patiens quia aeternus. “ The strength of the Papacy,” writes 
Lord Cowley, the British Ambassador at Rome, on the 19th 
January, 1859, “lies in his weakness, and we may well ask 
—what can you do with a man who, the moment that pres- 
sure is put upon him, exclaims, ‘Do with me what you will 
—drive me from Rome; but, remember, I am as much the 
Pope, whether seated on a barren rock, or on the throne of 
St. Peter?’”! 

1 “ Official Correspondence on the Italian question, by the Earl of 
Malmesbury.” London, 1859, p. 22. 


FRANCE AND ROME, 439 


Let this fact also be borne in mind, that Rome (as it has 
been already remarked by the Marquis Gino Capponi,) 
stands much more in need of the Pope, than the Pope does 
of Rome; and that, with a continuous absence of the Pope 
from Rome, the decay of that city inevitably begins. “In 
Rome,” says Cernuschi, one of the Roman Revolutionists of 
1849, but whose opinions have changed since then—“in 
Rome, above the Catacombs, in the midst of the Basilicas, 
and by the side of the Vatican, there is no room, space, 
nor place for a democratic tribune, much less for a king.” 
Rome may yet have to learn, whether it is for its greater 
advantage to be the domicile of Victor Emmanuel, the 
titular capital of a kingdom in which the centrifugal ten- 
dency is much stronger than the centripetal; and whether 
the preference so given to it is a compensation for the rank 
and importance it had previously enjoyed as the metropolis 
of all Catholic Christendom—as the first religious city of the 
entire world. We shall see what was seen in the fourteenth 
century. Roman envoys will seek out the Pope, and earnestly 
entreat him to return to “his faithful city.” 

There is one fact to which persons cannot now close their 
eyes, and that is, that the Pope and the whole “curia” are 
at this moment dependent upon the French Government. 
The mere threat to withdraw the French garrison, and to 
yield up to their fate the Pope, and the remnant of the 
Papal States still left to him, must force Rome to yield to 
the threatener everything that it would not be a sin to 
concede. And the demand might fairly be submitted to, 
when with it would be involved the duty of self-preservation. 
But such a state of circumstances, it is plain, must be in the 
highest degree alarming for other nations. But for the 
absolute confidence which every one has in the exalted 
conscientiousness and pure truthfulness of the present Pope, 
and the lucky circumstance that there is now no ecclesiastical 
complication which the Parisian Court could use for its own 
selfish ends—only that these things are perfectly plain, the 
existing relations between France and Rome could not be 
patiently endured by the Catholic world. But then these 


440 POLICY OF THE EMPEROR. 


relations may suddenly change, and as, sooner or later, they 
are sure to change, so can no one seriously desire their much 
longer continuance. No Catholic could or would find such 
relations to be tolerable, if they became permanent. The 
French garrison is not in Rome, having for its main object 
the defence of the city against an attack on the part of 
Piedmont—a word of command sent by the telegraph from 
Paris to Rome would be of sufficient potency to effect that 
purpose. The French are in Rome to protect the Pope 
against his own subjects, and the Garibaldian free corps. 

Already hasthe French Government, in principle, abandoned 
the maintenance of the dismembered Papal States. It had 
declared itself in favour of a Confederation, as the best form of 
political existence for the peninsula; and in so doing, had given 
a guarantee for the preservation of the temporal sovereignty of 
the Pope. But on the 25th of June, 1861, France recog- 
nised the new kingdom of Italy; and a few days afterwards, 
the Piedmontese Government publicly announced: “ That 
persons should not let themselves be deceived by appearances— 
that Piedmont would, at the fitting time, and with the assent 
of France, make its entrance into Rome, constitute Rome to 
be the residence of the King, and incorporate the remnant 
of the Papal States with the new kingdom.” 

For the present, it is the interest of the French Govern- 
ment to see the Pope so weak that he cannot dispense with 
the support of France, and that whatever may be desired 
from him should be rendered impossible of refusal, by the 
threat that the Pope would be left as a defenceless prey to 
his Italian enemies. If the withdrawal ofthe French 
garrison were to have the effect of removing the Pope and 
Court into France, then would the French sooner give up 
to-day than to-morrow the city of Rome, and all that remain 
of the Papal States, to the Piedmontese. That the Pope 
should become a dependent upon Piedmont, is one of those 
plans which does not lie within the contemplated policy of 
the Emperor. But if the transference of the Court of Rome 
to France could be effected, thus would the greatest triumph 
of Cesarism be accomplished. The nephew, the heir and 


STRUGGLE OF THREE GREAT NATIONALITIES. 441 


executor of the ideas and plans of “the uncle,” would then, 
by “pacific” means, and the avoidance of direct force, 
attain what the first Napoleon was never once able, even 
with the stress of imprisonment, to extort. 

There is now in Europe no Power which either will or 
can afford to the Pope effective aid in the preservation of 
the territories that are still left to him. 

Three mighty races, three great complex nationalities, are 
now struggling for dominion over the world; and all three 
are seized with the fearful travail—throes of new formations. 
These are the Roman world, under a French jyeper, as 
leader—the Sclavonic, with a Russian primacy—and the 
Germanic, with England’s preponderance. In the last of 
these the Protestant interest is, through England and 
Prussia, the most predominant. The consequence is, that 
England shows itself to be hostile to the continuance of the 
Papal States, and for the last two years has taken an active 
part: aiding in their destruction; whilst in Prussia the 
majority are moved towards the same view from a double 
interest—first there is the religious notion, to which the 
weakness and depression of the Roman See is agreeable; and 
then there is the political feeling, that, regards with com- 
placency the principle of annexation effected by a vote of 
the plebiscity, and which it is considered desirable to have 
imported into Germany. At such cost are persons quite 
prepared to sacrifice the common interest of all sove- 
_ reigns, and contentedly to look on until the overthrow of 
the principle of legitimacy and of all public law in Europe is 
completed. The Sclavonic world stands partly under the 
influence of Russia, but partly also distinct from it, and 
contemplates every question with a view to see how it may 
affect the great interests of nationality—and so doing, shows 
itself disposed to sympathise with Italian nationality against 
an isolated Church sovereignty over a distinct state. As to 
Catholic Germany, it is, by reason of the weakness of Austria, 
completely destitute of any political centre, and of all 
influence beyond the borders of Germany—it is upon this 
question powerless, and must confine itself to_addresses, and 


442 MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE FRENCH PRESS. 


innocuous announcements of the notions that it entertains. 

France, in the year 1849, as a Republic, restored by force 
of arms the Pope who had been despoiled and driven away 
by the Revolution. At that time a great majority of the 
French nation was favourable to the cause of the Pope. His 
liberal government affording a willing hand to every just 
demand of his subjects, and his exertions to introduce re- 
forms, had won for him the applause of all Europe, and made 
him the most popular of princes. But when he was rein- 
stated by French arms, and that event was followed by a 
complete re-establishment of an _ ecclesiastical adminis- 
tration, and when the Statuto, and, with it, self-government 
and popular representation, were abolished, and a con- 
dition of circumstances was renewed which it was supposed 
had been for ever got rid of, then it was that the feelings of 
the French with respect to the Papal Government were 
changed. The daily journals—those newspapers that are 
the most read—have now had for ten years time opportunity 
and unrestrained freedom to depict in the darkest colours 
the condition of the Papal States, and to portray the clerical 
government as an irremediable mass of corruption. The 
great amount of good that has been effected, or is in process 
of accomplishment, they have never mentioned; they have 
carefully suppressed all notice of it, or they have misrepresented 
it, whilst they have, at the same time, given an exaggerated 
description of every abuse. And so it has come to pass that 
episcopal pastorals and the most eloquent writings of the - 
first men in France have in these latter years been able to 
produceno favourable influence upon national feeling in support 
of the maintenance of the Papal States; and, consequently, 
if the Emperor were to withdraw his troops, there would be 
apparent no very strong movement in France, and none at 
all of a character threatening danger to its Government.' 


1A correspondent of the ‘‘ N. Preussischen Zeitung” (26th Sept., 
1861), who has shown himself to be generally well informed, says: ‘‘ The 
Catholic population (of France) are absolutely incapable of understand- 
ing how it can be necessary for the Head of the Church to be also a 
Sovereign ; and the French episcopacy have contributed to the adoption of 


ITALIAN OPPOSITION TO THE PAPACY. 443 


The feelings of the people in those portions of his terri- 
tory still remaining in possession of the Pope are in favour 
of their being incorporated with the new Italian kingdom.’ 
In consequence of directions received from Turin, all there 
remains tranquil; but when the two governments of Paris 
and Turin have made up their minds, and they consider that 
the time for action has arrived, then we may be sure there 
will be an insurrection of the inhabitants and a plebiscite to 
give to the attack of the Piedmontese the appearance of 
being nothing more than a compliance with, and a fulfilment 
of, the popular wiil. 

And so, then, we at last come to this, that it is the Italian 
nation—the nation to which also the Pope, as well as the 
“Prelati” of the Curia belong—that has to decide upon the 
fate of the Papacy; and this it is which is truly tragic in 
the present situation of affairs—that here Italians stand op- 
posed to Italians. And herewith is the Papacy in a far 
different position than it was in former times; for now the 
active majority of the nation seems determined on no longer 
enduring a Papal Government in the midst of the Peninsula. 
It is, they say, with its past antecedents, become a strange 
and antipathetical institution to the rest of Italy; and it is, 
in its dependence upon foreign protection, and guarded, in 
consequence of its own cravings, by foreign arms, a horrify- 
ing excrescence, a breath-smothering wen, and an ever- 
threatening danger to the body politic of Italy. 


such a notion, because they have—whether forced to do so or not, is an 
historical question we do not here enter into—shown themselves to be 
well content with a government allowance—that which was given to the 
Church by the State for the loss of the property of which it was de- 
spoiled—such property being, in fact, their temporal power. Add to this 
feeling the overwhelming influence of the anti-religious newspapers, and 
it is impossible not to entertain the conviction that the temporal power 
of the Pope has nothing favourable to expect from the verdict of public 
opinion in France. It is the Emperor alone who can give, by a favour- 
able vote, a fitting solution to the difficulty.” 

1“ Allo, Zeitung,” 26th May, 1861. See also ‘‘ Neue Preuss. Ztg.,” 
8th August, 1861. ‘ The whole population of that district (Subiaco) is 
pervaded but by one thought, and that is to see themselves included 
amongst the Piedmontese.” . 


444 THE ITALIAN KINGDOM AND THE PAPACY. 


When the Popes were, in former times, either threatened 
or attacked, the Italians either stood by their side or re- 
mained passive. But now almost the whole Italian literature 
preaches the same opinion, and the whole of the periodical 
press—with the exception of the “ Armonia” in Turin and 
the “Civilta” in Rome—inculcate the pet doctrine of the day; 
viz., that the Pope must, for the sake of the welfare of Italy, 
be stripped of his temporal sovereignty; and this, it is said, 
must be done under the pretence either that the greatness 
and unity of Italy require such a sacrifice, or that the 
defects of the Papal Government are held to be irremediable. 
A powerful Italy is wished for, because the example of a 
single united powerful France has worked upon the minds of 
the higher classes in Italy, who have for a long time been 
imbued with French literature. To obtain this commanding 
position, it is affirmed that Italy can alone reach it by ab- 
sorbing those States which are in their nature neutral, and 
by means of which the country is separated into two distinct 
halves.! Besides this, it is added, as a point about which 
there can be no dispute, that there is an utter impossibility: 
a Roman priest-government can ever reform itself, or adapt 
itself to the wants, ideas, and wishes of modern times. 
Such are the notions that Cavour has spread abroad. When, 
in the spring of the present year, Mr. Pope Hennessey spoke 
in the British Parliament in favour of the rights of the 
Papacy, Mr. Layard called upon him to name a single man 
of any intellectual importance in Italy, who, on the question 
of the Papal States, was on the side of the Papal Govern- 
ment; and Mr. Hennessey could only name one, and that 
one was—the Jesuit—Secchi. In point of fact, two indi- 
viduals conspicuous for their talents amongst the clergy have 
very openly declared as their opinion—that the Papal States, 
at least in their present condition, must either cease alto- 
gether or be completely altered. -The two men who have 
given this opinion are Passaglia and Tosti.? 


1 See the memorial of Count Rayneval, in ‘“ Allg. Ztg.,” 1857, 15th 


April. 
* The letter of the latter, dated from Montecassino, 15th June, is 


IMPORTANCE OF THE PAPAL SEE TO ITALY. 445 


And yet the time will assuredly come when the Italian 
nation will be again reconciled with the Papacy and its 
dominion in the midst of the people. That unhappy, hateful 
pressure which Austria imposed upon the entire Peninsula, 
was in reality the main cause why the value of the Papal 
See as a moral bulwark to all Italy became so very much 
obscured in the eyes of the nation. The Roman Govern- 
ment itself groaned under this pressure, and yet was forced 
to strengthen and confirm it, by calling in the Austrian 
troops of occupation, and by the political helplessness that 
forced it to follow, in temporal and political‘affairs, the will 
of the Cabinet of Vienna.! 

For fifteen hundred years the Papal See was the pivot upon 
which turned the destiny of the Italians. The greatest and 
the mightiest institution of the Peninsula is this See; and 
upon its possession rested the weight of Europe, and the 
world-renowned importance of Italy. Every thoughtful 
Italian must acknowledge that, if the Papal See be lost 
to Italy, then the sun has disappeared from its firmament. 
The partition between the nation and the whole course of 
Italian history on the one side, and of the Papacy on the 
other, could alone be put an end to, when Italy should 
become that which might make her united—that is, her con- 
version into a purely military state, living in a constant state 
of war, and maintaining herself by conquests. This, how- 
ever, is a state of circumstances so totally repugnant to the 
nature and disposition of the present race of Italians, that 


printed in the ‘‘ Edinburgh Review,” July, 1861, p. 277. In that letter 
he prays of the Pope to cast away the burden of the Papal States, 
‘*Perché oggi i popoli non si lasciano pit portare addosso, come una 
volta, ma vogliono andare co’ piedi loro,” &c. Tosrti’s treatise, ‘S. 
Benedetto al Parlamento nazionale” (Naples, 1861), in which a request is 
made for leaving Montecassino untouched, takes its stand upon the pro- 
priety of having a united Italian kingdom, and by implication abandons 
the maintenance of the Neapolitan Kingdom, as well as of the Papal 
States. 

1“ Che é egli (the Pope) in realt’ se non un suddito dell’ Austria?” 
said TorRELLI, in the year 1846, in his “ Pensieri sull’ Italia,” p. 83. 
That was, until 1859, the opinion generally entertained-in Italy. 


446 PROPOSED PERVERSION OF THE PAPACY. 


the military enthusiasm that now prevails, and yet-has left 
the greater portion of the population unmoved, is certain 
in a very short space of time totally to subside. 

A remarkable expression of Sismondi’s is well worthy of 
notice, viz., that the contumely with which Alexander VL, 
during his government, had covered the Church of Rome, 
annihilated that religious respect which had previously pro- 
tected all Italy, and so rendered it an easier spoil for hostile 
attempts to be made against it. Thus it was since Leo I. 
—for fourteen hundred years—every enfeeblement and de- 
pression of the Papacy was at the same time a downfall 
for Italy. In the grandeur and the majesty of the See of 
St. Peter, the Italians participated. And when Italians 
turned their arms against this See, and when, with the 
spoliation of this See, they enriched themselves, and when 
they hoped with the princely robes they had torn from the 
Pontiff to. cover their nakedness, then were they ultimately 
compelled to feel that they had been guilty of “ felo de se,” 
had laid suicidal hands on their own body, and vented their 
blind rage on its noblest organ. This is a fact which has 
been recognized by all persons, in modern times, thoroughly 
well acquainted with Italian history. Balbo, Troya, Cantu, 
Galeotti, Gino Capponi have not spoken otherwise respect- 
ing it. And even Ferrari would admit it, but that he is 
restrained by his cheerless, unchristian fatalism. 

But the predominant party now in Italy is not only for 
an incorporation of the whole of the Papal States in the 
new United Kingdom, but they would also make use of the 
spiritual power of the Papacy for their political objects—for 
objects which are still incalculable. They would have the 
Pope, not a world-Pope, but a Pope for the Italians, to do 
their will, and to prop up their kingdom; and much, indeed, 
would they be amazed and embarrassed to find the Pope 
making preparations to pass beyond the Alps. There might 
be an attempt to create a schism—an essay at establishing 
an anti-Pope—but such, in sooth, would be but a harmless 
experiment ; and its only end would be “reading a lesson” 
to the Italians, that an institution like the Papacy can never 


THE PAPACY A SACRED DEPOSIT TO ITALY. 447 


be made use of for selfish purposes, and that those who so 
seek to pervert it will, at last, only bring down upon them- 
selves both loss and shame. 

For centuries long, in Italy, the people hoped in the fulfil- 
ment of a prophecy respecting “an Angelic Pope” (Papa 
Angelico), who was yet to come, and to bring order out of 
disorder, peace out of disunion, piety out of irreligion, and 
who also was to be the renovator and the benefactor of 
Italy. That which is a Barbarossa sleeping in a cavern 
under a mountain, for the Germans, is the “ Papa Angelico” 
for Italians. In the saga is expressed the feeling, that the 
destiny of Italy is determined by the Papacy, that both have 
become united together, and that it is the mission of the 
Papal See to be the guardian genius of the nation, to abide ~ 
with it, and to watch over it. 

Although the understanding of Italians may be, for one 
moment, darkened, yet it will again be able clearly to 
discern that the Papacy is an exalted deposit and pledge, 
entrusted to them by God, and that, as a nation, they will 
be held responsible for the use or misuse that they make of 
it. The greatest men amongst the Italians in modern times 
have avowed that a monarchical unity was antagonistic 
both to the character and the past history of the population, 
and did violence to the Italian municipal spirit. Balbo, 
Gioberti, Rosmini, Galeotti, were all in favour of a Confede- 
ration, as being most in accordance with the Italian tradition 
and the popular sentiment, and therefore they regarded a 
united Italian kingdom as an impossibility. And even now 
there are many deep-thinking Italians who see in this 
attempt at creating a United-Kingdom edifice, nothing 
more than an effort to put the roof on a building which has 


1In Camat (“Storie Fiorentine,” iii. 60), it is said that in the year 
1514 a monk, Theodore, had cajoled the people with the assurance, 
‘“‘avergli un angelo rivelato, come egli sarebbe quel Papa Angelico, che 
i popoli italiani aspettavano.” Savonarola was also accused that his 
ambitious intention had been ‘farsi Papa Angelico.” See ‘ Scritti vari 
del P. Vinc. Marcnesx.” Florence, 1855, p. 294. ‘ 


448 UNITY AND CENTRALIZATION, 


neither side walls nor a solid foundation.!. The road to what 
is possible will yet be discovered, out of the by-path of that 
which, by experience, is found to be impossible. The party 
which struggles for unity and centralization, after the 
French pattern, has now the upper hand; but it will not 
be able to retain it, and the adherents of a federative unity 
will be then its successors in power and influence.2 Not many 
weeks since, one of the early leaders of the Italian Revolu- 
tion, Cernuschi, demonstrated the impracticability of a 
United Italy, and prophesied a speedy dissolution to the new 
kingdom. A Confederation of Italian States, with the Pope 
as Moderator at their head: such was the hope of Pius [X., 
and the object for which he struggled. And the establish- 
ment of such is still attainable, aad presents itself as a plan 
the most suitable for the popular genius; and as such it will 
be regarded when the existing Piedmontese annexation 
unity has fallen into fragments, when the Italians are 
wearied of Piedmontese officials, and when their shoulders 
have been galled and bruised from the heavy yoke of a Pied- 
montese administration. Men cannot, when they please, 
improvise united nationalities. To form a united nation, 
there must be the still, silent process of spontaneity ; and to 
complete it, the slow, gradual working of centuries. Pied- 
mont has neither the vocation nor the capability, in any one 
respect, to effect a fusion of the scattered parts of Italy, 
differing from each other in manners, tastes, and customs. 
Neither will the other parts of Italy ever really become 
Piedmontese, nor will Piedmont become Italian. Beyond 
the military spirit which certainly is to be found in Pied- 
mont, though wanting in the remainder of Italy, the popula- 
tion of Piedmont possesses none of those peculiar gifts, as 


1 See the remarks of the a Bourbon del Monte in ‘ Corre- 
spondant,” 1859, xii. 472. 

2 A proper distinction is there made between the two parties by Mon- 
TANELLI, *‘ Memorie,” i. 33. 

* “ Neue Preuss. Ztg.,” 16th July, 1861. ‘ Ami de la religion,” 18th 
July. 

* “Un Papato moderatore della lega degli Stati Italiani."—Farmt, 
ii. 69. 





TURIN GOVERNMENT AND THE POPE. 449 


a distinct race, which fit it for the intellectual or political 
leadership of a whole united Italian nationality. 

What the Government in Turin can offer to the Pope; 
what it formerly, under Cavour and through Passaglia, has 
offered; and what it, under Ricasoli, does offer, or thinks of 
again offering, is a subject with respect to which there is no 
mystery.!. The matter is one partly affecting the position of 
the Pope, and partly the freedom of the Church in Italy. 
With reference to the latter, Cavour, on the 26th March, 
1861, made the declaration in Parliament, “That Italy will 
emancipate the Church from the State, and secure its liberty 
on the amplest foundations.” With respect to the Pope and 
Court of Rome, it was announced, “ That there was every 
readiness to concede to the Pope and the Cardinals, as 
Princes and Privy-Councillors of the Church, all the privi- 
leges of a sovereign’s immunities both for his own person and 
the members of the Sacred College.” It was added “that 
an establishment of a free fixed landed property—an endow- 
ment from the State—would not be refused;” for it was 
perceived, even in Turin, that the Pope could not well be 
placed in the position of a government-pensioner. And yet, 
with these two conditions united together—sovereignty and 
an independent landed property—there would be nothing | 
more effected than the new commencement of another Papal 
state! But now Piedmont is prepared to rob the Pope of 
that which is his own, in order that he may be endowed with the 
property of strangers—and when that has been done, there 
is something more to be thought of: namely, what reliable 
securities can the Turin politicians or the future Roman 
Government tender to the Pope and the whole Catholic 
world? Who is there to guarantee the faithful performance 
of what they promise? Or who is there to go bail for the 
guarantees? Who is to be guarantee for the guarantors ? 

Is a Government that prides itself in its perfidy, and 
respects neither the rights of nations, nor the faith of treaties, 
nor the legitimate possession of property—that has no regard 

1 See as to this matter the ‘“‘ Edinburgh Review,” 1861, July, pp. 
260-9. : 

GG 


450 PIEDMONT AND THE PAPAL SEE. 


but for brute force, and the power of the stronger, and the 
authority of accomplished facts; is a Government that, in 
one of its decrees, declared the memory of a murderer to be 
holy and sanctified; is a Government that is restrained 
neither by the bonds of law, morality, nor religion, to be the 
Government that is to secure to the Church its freedom, and 
to the Pope his inviolability and independence? Let the 
question be asked in Turin of the Brofferios and the Gal- 
lengas, who regard the Church as a useless log, from which 
anyone can, like the Horatian carpenter, chop out, as he 
fancies, either a stool or an idol,! and they will tell you what 
would be the lot assigned to it. Their “freedom of the 
Church” would begin by “freeing” it from the burden of its 
earthly possessions. And when they had done that, then 
they might deal with the Mendicant as their whims, their 
caprice, or their innate despotism might dispose them to act. 
Their doings with religious communities, their oppression 
and spoliation of monasteries and convents, their banishment 
and maltreatment of bishops, are now before the world, as the 
superabounding first-fruits of the new era of “religious free- 
dom” inaugurated by them. 

That the Papal See could be, in a kingdom like the Pied- 
montese, really free, is an absolute impossibility. Even if the 
present and future statesmen of that kingdom had the sincere 
intention not to violate the freedom of the Papal See, still 
circumstances would overmaster them. The daily press 
would be untiring in its mischievous meddling and incite- 
ments—it would to-day be describing the Pope and all 
about him as secret conspirators, and then to-morrow de- 
nouncing them as popular demagogues; and so there would 
be put in force, and in a very short space of time, too, the 
whole apparatus of the police, with political measures of 
restraint and coercion. As -opposed to the powers and 
influences that now prevail in Piedmont, and will for a time 
reign over it, every compact and assurance would be but as a 

1 [* Olim truncus eram ficulnus, inutile lignum ; 


Cum faber, incertus scamnum faceret—ne Priapum, 
Maluit esse deum.”—‘‘ Hor.,” lib. i., serm. 8.] 


THE POPE A “SUBJECT” OR “ AN EXILE” ? 451 


drag-chain made of paper to restrain the downward career of a 
fast-running carriage. Upstart advocates and journalists would, 
upon the very first opportunity, sweep down, with the besom 
of brutal violence, the whole cobweb of solemn stipulations. 
Italian Baréres would surpass their predecessors, in the Paris 
Convention, in the utterance of sonorous phrases, in palliation 
of every infringement of right that might be practised, and 
every deed of violence that might be perpetrated. Then, 
too, they would be acting upon the apothegm: “II faut aviler 
et puis détruire.” And as “the monarchy” was treated in 
France, so the posthumous posterity of the Convention in 
Italy are already preparing to follow out a similar series of 
events, and to complete them all with a final, fatal verdict 
against “the Papacy.” According to statements made in 
the public journals, “ There are at this time in Rome nine of 
the Cardinals disposed to enter into terms with Piedmont.” 
This is scarcely credible. They must be indeed blindfolded, 
if they could think of so acting; or do they imagine that the 
time has, even now, come when the Mazzini Wolf will lie 
down meekly, gently, and tenderly by the side of the Church 
Lamb? 

Should the hour arrive when the Pope has to make his 
choice between the condition of being “a subject” or “an 
exile,” then will he, as we confidently hope, adopt the better 
alternative; for the Pope is—in the whole Catholic world—at 
home.' It is only amongst the professors of another creed he 
would be a stranger. To whatever side he then may turn, 
he will everywhere meet with his children, and everywhere 
will be venerated as a father. ‘Thou art mine, and we are 
thine”—such is the salutation with which he will be in all 
places greeted. 

Rome, too, may then remember with what shouts of joy in 
the time of the seventh Pius the appearance of the Pope, 
released from his French prison, and returning to his native 
land, was hailed in Italy. The circumstance, too, of the 

1 Petrarch, in his letter to Pope Urban V. in the year 1366, says, 
‘* Ubicunque ille (Pontifex) sibi moram eligit, illic sponsa, illic sedes 
propria sua est."—Ap. RAYNALD, ad. a. 1366, § 22. 

GG 2 


452 REMOVAL OF THE PAPAL SEE. 


Pope’s absence would have this beneficial result—that it 
would make, in a tangible manner, clear to the religious 
portion of the nation certain facts, and they might thus 
then say: “It is our Unity-advocates who have imposed 
upon us the triple yoke of a Conscription, Exorbitant 
Taxes, and Foreign Government-Officers—and now, in addi- 
tion to all these, they have driven away from us the Pope, 
and forced him to become an exile on the other side of the 
Alps.” There would, it must be admitted, in such a 
temporary separation of husband and wife, in the departure 
of the Pope from Rome, be many inconveniences experienced. 
It could not occur without great and manifold disturbance 
and interruptions to the ecclesiastical department, to the 
members of the Court, to the many and numerous religious 
congregations which would have to be transported en masse 
to a foreign land. In former times, the machinery of the 
Government of the Church was much more simple; and 
when the Pope (as it often happened) had to take up_his 
abode in another city than Rome, or to travel across the 
Alps, the whole members of the Court that followed him 
could find sufficient room in a single French abbey. It is 
now far otherwise. There are, too, some Powers that may 
suppose it will be easier for them to gain what they desire 
from a Court suffering from oppression, and forced away 
from its native soil. Thus it will be seen that, if there is a 
necessity for quitting Rome, it will not fail to be accompanied 
by difficulties and painful circumstances. But, then, that 
which is the less of two evils must be chosen; and there can 
be no doubt that the temporary embarrassment of the Papal 
See is a far less evil in comparison with that which would 
involve the renunciation of a principle, that, once abandoned, 
would prove to be lost irretrievably. 

The removal of the Papal See to France would, under 
existing circumstances, be regarded as tantamount to the 
formal challenge to a schism ; or it would, at the least, afford 
a welcome pretext to all who wish to curtail the Papal 
rights, or to interrupt the communication between the Pope 
and the several Churches; and it would put arms into the 


CATHOLICISM IN GERMANY. 453 


hands of governments that wish to impede the action of the 
Papal authority upon the churches and populations in their 
respective states. 

And, then, what humiliations await both Pope and Car- 
dinals, and what a yoke would be imposed upon them, if they 
were once but to be on French soil, and within the power of 
those individuals on the banks of the Seine who are already 
boasting that they can count upon a number of votes at 
the next Conclave! When Spain had become acquainted 
with the designs of Piedmont upon Umbria and the Marches, 
she was prepared to send an army into Middle Italy, for 
the defence of the Papal territory, and invited the French 
Government to strengthen its garrison in Rome, for the same 
purpose. To that invitation, a reply in the negative was 
given, “because England did not wish it.” And it has 
come to this—the French people, who, in the year 1849, 
had purchased, with the blood of their warriors, the 
restoration of the Pope, are now, twelve years later, com- 
pelled to abandon the Pope, because—England so wills it! 

If the Court of Rome should reside for a time in Ger- 
many, the Roman “ Prelati” will, doubtless, be agreeably 
surprised to discover that our people are able to remain 
Catholic and religious without the leading-strings of a 
police; and that their religious sentiments are a better 
protection to the Church than Episcopal prisons, which, 
thank God! do not exist. They will learn that the Church 
in Germany is able to maintain herself without the Holy 
Office ; that our Bishops, although, or because, they use no 
physical compulsion, are reverenced, as if they were princes, 
by the people; that they are received with triumphal 
arches, and that their arrival in a place is a festival for 
the inhabitants. They will see how the Church with us 
rests on the broad, strong, and healthy basis of a well- 
organised system of pastoral administration, and of popular 
religious instruction. They will perceive that we Catholics 
have maintained for years, straightforwardly, and with- 
out reservation, a struggle for the deliverance of the 
Church from the bonds of bureaucracy; that we cannot en- 


454 DEFENCE OF THE POPE'S LEGITIMATE RIGHTS. 


tertain the idea of denying to Italians what we have 
claimed for ourselves; and that, therefore, we are far from 
thinking that it is anywhere an advantage to fortify the 
Church with the authority of the police, and with the power 
of the secular arm. Throughout Germany we have been 
taught by experience the truth of Fénélon’s saying, “ That 
the spiritual power must be kept carefully separate from the 
civil, because their union is pernicious.” They will find, 
further, that the whole of the German clergy is prepared to 
bless the day, when it shall learn that the free sovereignty 
of the Pope is assured—without sentence of death being still 
pronounced by ecclesiastics; without priests continuing to 
discharge the functions of treasury-clerks, or police-direc- 
tors, or to conduct the business of the lottery; and, finally, 
the Prelati will convince themselves that all the Catholics 
of Germany will stand up, as one man, for the independence 
of the Holy See, and the legitimate rights of the Pope; but 
that they are no admirers of a form of government of very 
recent date, which is, in fact, nothing else than the product 
of the mechanical polity of Napoleon combined with a clerical 
administration. And this information will bear good fruit, 
when the hour shall strike for their return home, and when 
restitution has been made. Another thing will also occur— 
whether the Italian Kingdom can establish itself, or—what is 
certainly far more probable—fall again into pieces. The time 
will come when the people of Italy will desire to make peace 
with the Papacy; and then they will recognize how truly 
had one of their most exalted men of genius—Tommaseo— 
spoken, when he uttered these words: “It would be a folly 
in Italy to cast away from itself, to any other nation, the 
Papacy, which is its sword and its shield.”! And Tommaseo 
also intimates that it might be well if the Papacy were 
removed for a short time out of Italy; for so would the 
present race of Italians best learn what a treasure to them 
had been its possession. 

Meanwhile, Pius and the men of his Council will “ ponder 
over the days of old, and the years of the past.” They will 

1 Roma e il mondo,” p. 349. ? Psalm lxxyi. 6. 


RESTORATION OF THE POPEDOM. 455 


read the future in the earlier history of the Papacy, which 

has already seen many an exile and many a restoration. 

The example of the resolute, courageous Popes of the Middle 

Ages will be as a guiding light to them. There is no 

question now as to suffering martyrdom, or of clinging to 

the tombs of the Apostles, or of descending into the cata- 
combs—but here is the matter to be thought of—to quit a 

land of slavery, in order to exclaim, upon a free soil: “The: 
bonds are snapped asunder, and we are emancipated!” For 
the rest, God will provide; and the unceasing gifts and pure 

sympathies of the Catholic world will provide. And the 

parties, too, in Italy, will provide for the consequences. 

When these parties have torn and exhausted the land of 
which they have made a battle-field ; and when the sobered 
and saddened people, tired of the rule of lawyers and of 
soldiers, have understood the worth of a moral and spiritual 

authority—then will the time have come to think of returning 

to the Eternal City. In the interval, the things will have 

disappeared for whose preservation such pains had been 

taken; and then there will be better reason than Consalvi 

had, in the preface to the “ Motu Proprio,” of the 6th July, 

1816, to say: “ Divine Providence, which so conducts human 

affairs, that, out of the greatest calamity, innumerable bene- 

fits proceed, seems to have intended that THE INTERRUPTION 
OF THE PapaL GOVERNMENT should prepare the way for IT 

IN A MORE PERFECT FORM.” 


456 


APPENDIX. 


TWO LECTURES DELIVERED IN MUNICH, 
5TH AND 6TH APRIL, 1861. 
E. 


WILL the Papal State maintain itself or vanish? Will the 
Head of the Church remain as sovereign prince, or is the 
time arrived when the temporal power of the Pope must be 
separated from the spiritual ? 

A large portion of territory is already torn from him, the 
remainder is threatened—the seizure even of his capital is 
prepared for. Should this take place, what will be the con- 
sequences to the Christian world? What is to become of 
the Papal See when the ground beneath its feet is taken 
away? And will it be possible to fulfil its high mission 
when it is, so to speak, suspended in the air, or placed in 
dependence on a foreign power intent on its own objects? 
These questions keep every man in breathiess suspense. No 
human foresight, no power of imagination, is capable of mea- 
suring all the consequences, operative through ages to come, 
bound up inevitably in their decision. 


APPENDIX. 457 


Of the good right of the Pope, which rests upon the 
strongest and most legitimate titles of acquisition and pos- 
session, acknowledged by mankind, there can be no doubt. 
As little can exist of the faithless Macchiavellism, and the 
revolting injustice of the policy pursued towards the Roman 
See. On this point we all think alike. It may, however, be 
as well to mention a fact generally ignored, at least in Italy, 
that Pius is an electoral prince, that he has to administer a 
property only entrusted to him for life, and that he is bound 
by oath to preserve the States of the Church intact. 

Unquestionably, the Papacy is older than the States of the 
Church; the Roman bishops have been from all time Chief 
Shepherds of the Church; but in latter ages only have they 
become Temporal Princes. The Roman See subsisted seven 
centuries without possessing in sovereignty a single village. 
And even after the large donations of the Frankish kings, 
and that the Emperor had laid the foundation for a State of 
the Church, centuries had still to pass away before the Pope 
came into quiet possession and actual administration of the 
land in its subsequent extent. In Rome itself the Popes’ 
power was long disputed; they were frequently and for a 
long time compelled to leave their city, and to prefer having 
their residence in Viterbo, Anagni, Orvieto, or they were 
necessitated to pass the Alps and seek elsewhere an asylum— 
most frequently in France. In the fourteenth century there 
came no Pope to Italy for nearly seventy years. The Court 
(Curia) resided in Avignon. In fact, it was not till the time 
of Leo X., about 350 years ago, that the Popes held quiet 
possession of the State, with its three million of inhabitants. 

It is also true that the electoral form, excellent for the 
Church, has, politically considered, serious disadvantages. 
The many and frequent changes of rulers, and, with them, 
systems of government—the formerly prevailing efforts of 
the elected to elevate and enrich their kindred—the want of 
a native-born dynasty, which should become, through the at- 
tachment of the people, at once a pledge and a bulwark of 
steadfastness and duration—all this shows that the form of 
an electoral monarchy, with many advantages, has also its 


458 APPENDIX. 


dark side; and history teaches that electoral states, being 
exposed to stronger convulsions, are more easily subverted 
than hereditary principalities. In Rome, however, till very 
lately, this danger was warded off by the universally recog- 
nised inviolability of the Papacy, by the religious reverence 
that environed and protected the chair of the Apostolic 
princes. 

The heroes of Church science have not however considered 
this union of the highest ecclesiastical power and dignity 
with a temporal kingdom as an advantage or a perfection, 
but rather as a something urgently commanded by the ne- 
cessity of the times. “It would be better in itself,” says 
Cardinal Bellarmine, “if the Popes concerned themselves 
only with spiritual affairs, the Kings with temporal; but, on 
account of the wickedness of the times, Divine Providence 
has seen fit to bestow temporal principalities on the Pope 
and other bishops. It has been with the Church as with the 
Jews, amongst whom the kingly dignity and the pontifical 
were first united in the time of the Maccabees. In the 
earlier ages the Church did not need princely authority for 
the support of her majesty—now it seems to be a necessity.”! 

This necessity indisputably exists in our time as strongly 
as ever. And yet there has arisen, even in the Catholic 
world, numerous voices—some even of theological import- 
ance—which speak of a time for the separation of these 
hitherto united powers—which announce that the time is 
come when the secularization of the Church State is both 
called for and unavoidable. The causes of this striking ma- 
nifestation are to be sought for in the condition of Italy, the 
internal circumstances of the Papal States, the sentiments of 
the Italian peoples, and more particularly of the Pope’s sub- 
jects. 

The Papal Government has the reputation of being one of 
the mildest and most moderate in all Europe. And yet it is 
true, that for nearly forty years deep discontent and dissatis- 
faction have reigned in the States of the Church, but most 


1“De Rom. Pontifice, Disputationes,” vol. i., p. 1104. Ed. Ingol- 
stadt, 1596. 


APPENDIX. 459, 


strongly in the towns; and in a land where no independent 
yeomanry exists, it is the population of the towns in a yet 
higher degree than elsewhere that decides on everything. 
In these chief places of the nation secret political societies, 
conspiracies, and attempts at insurrection have grown rank 
and numerous; hundreds live compromised or banished—they 
pass their days as fugitives in foreign lands. 

The weakness of the Papal Government increases from year 
to year. Pius 1X. attempted in vain by concessions, and by 
granting a Constitution, to effect a reconciliation. He began 
his reign with a most complete amnesty, which recalled the 
accused and culpable of four insurrections. This measure 
brought back to the country the irreconcileable opponents of 
its Government, and placed them in a position to make war 
upon it. 

The catastrophes that followed in quick succession are well 
known. As before, so since 1849, two foreign powers, Aus- 
tria and France, have been obliged to garrison the country 
with their troops. 

The Papal See, which in its ecclesiastical position and its 
spiritual rights found in the whole Catholic world the most 
complete recognition and the readiest obedience, more, per- 
haps, than had ever been the case in like degree in any for- 
mer time; yet on its temporal, political side has presented the 
melancholy spectacle of the weakest, most helpless Govern- 
ment in all Europe; and one, too, only able to maintain it- 
self by the double prop of foreign Powers and their bayo- 
nets. 

And yet no government could labour more to remove no- 
torious abuses of administration, to introduce improvements, 
to take into consideration the reasonable wishes of the peo- 
ple, so far as the interests and principles of self-maintenance 
or of the existing system of a government administered by 
ecclesiastics, were not brought in question. For twelve 
years the history of the present Pope’s reign was one con- 
tinuous chain of useful and beneficent reforms. But all 
these improvements were and are insufficient to remove the 
deep discontent and aversion of the people. 


460 APPENDIX. 


Every government which is not supported merely by the 
bayonets of its soldiers, must—even if there be a class of 
discontented—be able to depend upon the majority of the 
population, through their attachment to the dynasty, their 
conservative feelings, or, at least, through an interest in self- 
maintenance and fear of revolutions—and thus be in union 
with the nation. 

All this is wanting in the States of the Church: there is 
no dynasty, all attempts to form a native army have failed 
utterly, the dislike to the Papal military service is universal, 
and foreign mercenaries only embitter it. Foreign diplo- 
matists remark in their reports: “The impotence of the 
Papal Government is glaringly evident—it can rely on no 
one class of the population—in the moment of an attack upon 
it not one would raise a hand in its defence, and no one make 
a sacrifice for its support.” Hence it comes that the temporal 
dominion of the Papal See has numerous enemies, not only 
among its own subjects, but throughout Italy. The public 
opinion of Italy is against it. It is looked upon as the great 
obstacle to the realisation of the Italian ideal—the develop- 
ment of one grand nationality, one powerful Italian State, 
which should take its place among the “Great Powers” 
of Europe. Count Rayneval says justly, “The displeasure 
and discontent of the population arise chiefly from this: 
that Italy does not play such a part in the world as she has 
dreamed of. In all times when this feeling of national 
ambition is awakened, the temporal power of the Pope will 
be looked upon by it as a hindrance.”! 

It is further not to be denied that for a hundred years a 
tendency to secularisation has passed through the whole of 
Europe. The union of spiritual dignities with temporal 
officialism has, henceforward, no sympathy to reckon on from 
the nations of Europe. Even the German spiritual princi- 
palities, in which, unlike the Papal States, the administration 
was chiefly in lay hands, have been destroyed, not merely by 
revolution, but by public opinion, which saw in them some- 
thing foreign to the age; unnatural—a ruin of the past; and 


2 Allo, Ztg.,” 15th April, 1857. 


APPENDIX. 461 


since 1814 not a single voice has been raised for their re- 
storation. In our time, therefore, a union of temporal 
functions and action with the ecclesiastical is no longer an 
element of strength, but of weakness. Nothing gives rise to 
more bitter feelings than the application of secular govern- 
mental measures, or even of the power and chastisements of 
the police to effect religious purposes, or the reverse, the 
application of religious means to political objects. 

This repugnance to the admixture of the spiritual and 
temporal, or to the exercise of political power and police 
office functions by ecclesiastics, is not the operation of weak- 
ened religious feeling, but the consequences of altered views 
and a change in circumstances. The Spaniards present a 
striking example of this. With the Spaniards there was 
a kind of necessity for that which appeared elsewhere in- 
tolerable. They desired to listen to the Church even in 
temporal matters; and if the State wanted taxes the inter- 
vention of the Church was requisite—an ecclesiastical form 
must be given to the impost; and then only did the nation pay 
it willingly. Thus the Spanish Inquisition was a kind of State 
and Police institution, that was acceptable to the people only 
under such a form. All this is now changed even in Spain. 
And with us, in Germany, it would stir up the most vehe- 
ment opposition if a prelate were to become minister, or a 
bishop the president of an administration. 

Formerly there was little governmental action in the terri- 
tories of the Pope. The municipal form existed throughout, 
and administered its own affairs; whilst the State contented 
itself with the supreme direction without much interference 
in details. It is now altogether different, in consequence of 
the system established by means of the French Napoleonic 
administration, to whose inheritance Cardinal Consalvi suc- 
ceeded. Since then it has heen an ecclesiastical government, 
and such it is at present; and although in the year 1848 
there were 5,059 lay employés to 109 ecclesiastics, still it 
has been felt as an intolerable burden, and as such to be 
shaken off; and—as it is generally considered—“ the sooner 
the better.” 


462 APPENDIX. 


The judicial power, also, mostly exercised by ecclesiastics 
in the Papal States, has given occasion to manifold com- 
plaints. And it may be a subject of consideration whether in 
our times an ecclesiastic, by his condition, his mental cultiva- 
tion, and his pastoral far more than forensic modes of thought, 
is adapted for a judge; and whether the temptation would 
not be too strong for him to give to a frequently milder, but, 
in the end, purely despotic procedure, the preference over 
an objective and severely legal judgment and decision. 

Hence the condition of the Papal States, apart from all 
foreign intrigues, incitements, and acts of violence, has been 
for years lamentable and discouraging. 

The Government, necessarily rendered distrustful by the 
aversion of a large portion of the population, thinks less 
freedom must be granted in the interests of its own self-pre- 
servation ; and no assemblies for discussion can be permitted, 
because its enemies would speedily become masters of them. 
On all sides the Government must act obstructively, and for 
that very reason it loses more and more the support of public 
opinion; and hence the striking contrast between times past 
and the present! When, in 1809, Pius VII. answered the 
decree of deposition launched against him by Napoleon L., 
by excommunicating the French Emperor, the act awakened 
the enthusiasm of the people; all Romans who were in the 
French service threw up their employments; and, in short, 
the whole nation made its resolution plainly manifest, to 
rule itself exactly according to the Bull of Excommunication. 
Some years later, the return of Pius from his French impri- 
sonment was a real triumphal procession throughout the 
whole land. How changed is all this now! 

Cardinal Pacca relates that at the period of the Napo- 
leonic dominion he had, after a year’s meditation, reconciled 
himself to the thought that the extinction of the temporal 
sovereignty of the Papal See would be coupled with many and 
no small advantages for the Church—that the jealousy and 
dislike to the Roman See would be removed, or at least 
diminished. Pacca was of opinion that Europe was advanc- 
ing towards a great universal monarchy, in which the Pope, 


APPENDIX. 463 


without prejudice to his spiritual dignity, might again 
become a subject, as under the Roman Empire. In this,. 
however, he greatly deceived himself. A universal monarchy 
in Europe is, happily, not to be thought of, and the Pope 
cannot become a subject; he cannot belong exclusively to 
any one kingdom—he must exercise his high office freely and 
independently, as the common father of all. As Cesar said 
that Ceesar’s wife must not be even suspected, so the merest 
suspicion of dependence would be fatal to the Papal See. 
The most unconditional, unreserved confidence is the breath 
of life to spiritual authority. If there were the appearance, 
the conjecture, that the Papal See, in matters spiritual, acted 
under the influence, or for the interest, of a political power, it 
would operate as a deadly poison on the Church. From this 
consideration a change in the position of the Papal See is 
becoming more and more an urgent necessity. So long as 
two foreign Powers, Austria and France, held garrisons in 
the Church States, it might seem that the Pope, between the 
two neutralising each other, enjoyed freedom. But when, in 
consequence of the late war, the Austrian occupation ceased, 
and the French must be looked upon as the only support of 
the Papacy, a condition of things has existed which is only 
bearable as being provisional and transitory. Placed as it 
now is, the possession of a Church State would be productive 
of results the very opposite to what it ought to produce, and 
whereby alone it can be justified. Thistead of acting inde- 
pendently as the highest guide of the Church and assuring 
its freedom, it will sink continually in public opinion, as an 
institution which cannot dispense with the pro of foreign 
soldiers; and the Pope, like all who ask and need foreign 
help, must become a dependent on his Protector—or, what 
is nearly as bad, he will appear to be so, for that Protector 
can at any time disquiet or coerce him, by the threat of 
withdrawing his troops. 


464 APPENDIX. 


Il. 


In my first Lecture I spoke of the difficult position of the 
Ecclesiastical States, which has its foundation rather in false 
relations within, than in the hostile and rapacious advances 
of foreign powers, as the enemy has made, and continues to 
make, the discontent of the people the pretext for and fulcrum 
of their operations. 

The thought here forces itself upon me, that the Church 
State had its beginning with the German Empire; and it may 
well be affirmed that the fall of that Empire inflicted a wound 
on the Roman State from which it is still bleeding. The 
Emperor was the armed “ Protector” of the Papal See—on 
him lay the duty of wielding the sword, and when the Popes 
took this on themselves, it was either a mistake, or an act of 
the direst necessity. And although the Empire had long pre- 
sented only the shadow of the old idea and purpose, yet was 
it to the last the prop and centre of the ancient political 
order of Europe, and covered with its majesty the Papal See, 
as a member engrafted upon the United Roman Empire. 
If with the Empire an outward stay has fallen, inwardly the 
State is sickening under the false relations in which “an 
ecclesiastical administration” necessarily stands to a modern 
system of statesmanship. It is difficult to reject the opinion 
that lay hands are better suited to direct the action of state 
and police, with their manifold increasing material wants 
and cares—they are better suited than those of priests for 
a police and administrative omnipotence, a care for lot- 
teries, theatres, gaming-houses, and houses of public enter- 
tainment, for managing passports and manufactories. It 
is, indeed, frequently asserted that the Pope, as an ecclesias- 
tical prince, must commit the administration to “ecclesiastical” 
officers. This necessity, however, is not very evident. At 
least, the ecclesiastical sovereignties of Germany, to which 
Bellarmine appealed in justification of the Pope’s temporal 
dignity, afford no parallel. The prince-bishops and eccle- 


APPENDIX. 465 


siastical electors never hesitated to govern their countries 
through the instrumentality of lay ministers, chancellors, 
councillors, employés and judges. 

The government of Francis Louis, of Erthal, Prince- 
bishop of Wiirzburg and Bamberg, was a model government, 
one blessed throughout the land; I have in my youth—(my 
grandfather was in. the Bishop’s service)—heard old men 
speak of it with enthusiasm. It was, however, conducted by 
lay administrators. 

Pius himself had acknowledged the want of thorough re- 
formation in this respect—his lamented minister Rossi had 
presented a plan to the government which the Great Powers, 
in the Memorandum of 1831, had previously recommended. It 
is known how the dagger of a Mazzinist cut off, with this dis- 
tinguished man, the many hopes bound up with him. And 
after his restoration, Pius thought himself obliged to make 
no concessions, which, as the English envoy, Mr. Lyons, 
said, “might be used as weapons in the hands of enemies to 
the government, to contend against it.” 

“What will all thisend in?” That is the question every 
man proposes to himself—every man tries to answer, or 
would like to hear answered. In the complicated relations 
and unnatural tension under which Europe now labours, 
positive conclusions are naturally excluded; we can only 
speak of possibilities and probabilities. 

The first possibility is, that a new war breaking out, a 
victory of the Austrian arms should restore Austrian pre- 
ponderance and the Papal dominion over the whole extent 
of the States of the Church. Whether such a turn of affairs 
is hoped for by many, I do not know; but what I do know 
is, that it is not wished by any intelligent friend of the 
Papal See. A permanent occupation of the country by 
Austrian troops, which would then become necessary, would 
render the Pope’s situation worse, and his temporal sove- 
reignty more unmaintainable. New insurrections and political 
convulsions with Mazzini views would inevitably follow. 

A second possibility is, the transplanting the Papal See 
to France. Such, it is well known, was the plan of the first 

HH 


466 APPENDIX. 


Napoleon, which was frustrated by the firmness of Pius VII. 
The Emperor has left no doubt on this point; for, subse- 
quently, at St. Helena, he spoke with complaisance of the 
plan, and of the splendid results that would have been con- 
sequent on its realisation. That the nephew has entered on 
the inheritance of the ideas and plans of his uncle is well 
known. The carrying through of these projects, or the 
fulfilment of these hopes, would certainly produce incalculable 
mischiefs. A Gallicised Papacy would become a formidable 
source of confusion and discord; and one of our best read 
journals has openly expressed the expectation that a schism 
in the Catholic Church would be the result.1 | 

I confess that I entertain no fear for the one or the other— 
not of a schism in the Church; it is now four hundred years 
since even an attempt at a division has been made. Divi- 
sion and Catholicism are two things so diametrically opposed, 
that nothing but some extraordinary complication, a dispute 
on principles, on ideas, could again lead to such a result. 
I am convinced that no materials, and no disposition to such 
a malady exists, in the whole compass of the Catholic Church. 
The universal feeling of the religious in all Catholic countries 
would reject. such an attempt with abhorrence, and the irre- 
ligious would at the utmost be able only to perform a second 
act of the Ronge-May-festival night of 1846. 

It will not, however, come to a repetition of the four- 
teenth century—we shall see no second Avignon with French 
cardinals and a French Pope. The episcopacy, the clergy, 
all the Catholic faithful of France, would protest against a 
Papal Court wholly in the power of the Emperor; a will- 
less instrument of his policy. The whole collective Catholic 
states and people of the universe would cast their weighty 
“ No” into the scale against such a project. 

Of the three parties into which the French may be divided 
when such a question is in agitation, the devout minded, the 
_ Radicals and the Bonapartists, only the latter, numerically 
the weakest, would, provided their master so willed it, be 
favourable to such a measure; the other two, i.¢., the great 

1% Allg. Ztg.,” April 2, 1861. 


APPENDIX. 467 


majority of the nation, would be averse to, and strive against 
it. The Catholics, because they would see, in the attempt 
to make the Papacy an instrument of political interests, 
a degradation of it, to be warded off at any cost; the irre- 
ligious because they would on no account have the highest 
spiritual authority in close proximity to themselves, and in 
their own land; because they dread the mighty influence 
which it would exercise over the whole body of the clergy 
and the believing part of the nation. 

Third Possibility—That the French Emperor should bring 
the question of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope to the 
decision of a Congress of the Catholic Powers—evidently, in 
the present position of affairs, the justest, most rational, and 
the only method whereby the Emperor can turn aside the 
reproach made against him in the very heart of his own 
nation, viz., that he has humbled himself to be the instrument 
of English hatred to Rome, and thereby placed the French 
nation in a position as false politically as it is morally un- 
worthy. These Powers would be, France, Austria, Spain, 
Portugal, Belgium, and, it is to be hoped, Bavaria. Pied- 
mont has, indeed, openly declared that she no longer acknow- 
ledges any national rights; yet, in the present relation, as 
she alone is in a condition to represent Italy, she must be 
admitted. What such a Congress would resolve may be 
predicted with some probability. 

The majority of voices would press for the maintenance 
of the remaining possessions of the Papal See, and for the 
restitution of at least some portion of what has been violently 
taken away. It will also desire, as the only means of satisfy- 
ing the people, municipal self-government, participation of 
the laity in the government, representation for (the purposes) 
of finance and legislation—in short, they would demand the 
introduction of those institutions which now prevail through- , 
out Europe, with the exception of Russia and Turkey, and 
which were substantially demanded by the Five Great 
Powers in the year 1831, and without which none can see 
how ‘a reconciliation-between the Government and the 

HH 2 


468 APPENDIX. 


people, and permanent order, are to be maintained, otherwise 
than by permanent occupation by foreign troops. 

_ Fourth Possibility—That the Pope should be obliged to 
quit Rome, and take up his abode for a time in some other 
Catholic country. Rome, and the remainder of the States 
of the Church, would be, forthwith, incorporated with the 
new Piedmontese kingdom. It is self-evident that all those 
arrangements which the Papal Government thinks it cannot 
grant would be immediately introduced—the secularisation 
would be complete. The whole present order of things would 
be passed over as with a sponge; the clergy, as in all other 
parts of Europe, with the abolition of all privileges burden- 
some and offensive to other classes, would, like other citizens, 
be placed under the common law; and, herewith, the main 
source of the dislike of the people to the priesthood be 
put an end to. Then, when the germ of decay which the 
new Italian kingdom bears in its bosom develops itself, and 
the return of the Pope to Rome, and the resurrection of the 
whole State of the Church, or a part of it, takes place, the 
Pope will find “accomplished facts ;” he will enter upon an 
entirely altered position; he will be the head of an adminis- 
tration entirely, or in great part, secular in its members, and 
whose precedent condition, or the forcing back into forms 
now dead, it would be as unwise as difficult, if not impossible, 
to accomplish. 

Fifth Possibility.—That the States of the Church should be 
irreparably lost to the Papal See. Even this eventuality 
must be looked in the face. It is conceivable that it is 
already resolved on in the councils of Providence. The 
Church has truly the promise that the gates of Hell shall not 
prevail against her, but she has no promise that the successor 
of St. Peter should always remain monarch of a temporal 
_kingdom. If Italy, or Europe, be destined to become the 
theatre of new revolutions, the position of the Head of the 
Church is indisputably better and more dignified if it be not 
welded to the ponderous, helpless burden of a secular king- 
dom, which he could neither maintain nor protect against 
ever-recurring insurrection, and against the thronging billows 


APPENDIX. 469 


of revolution. Should, however, a permanent and well- 
ordered State establish itself in Italy, public opinion, or 
rather the public conscience of Catholic Europe, will be 
strong and powerful enough to create and make firm a 
position through which the freedom of the Papal See, and 
the sovereign dignity and inviolability of the Head of the 
Church, would be protected and secured. 

In Germany a small, feeble State, surrounded by stronger 
neighbours, like Frankfort,.can subsist free and independent. 
And shall, in Italy—well ordered, and recovered from the 
revolutionary fever—the Pope not be able to maintain his 
smaller or greater territory and capital intact? Will not 
Rome itself—this out-and-out papal and ecclesiastical Rome, 
which but for the chair of St. Peter and the tombs of the 
Apostles would long since have sunk to a little provincial 
city or market-town—prefer to be a world-city, the metro- 
polis of a spiritual kingdom of two hundred millions, than the 
seat of a kingdom of twenty millions? The reconciliation of 
the people to the Papal dominion is here presupposed; for 
who can be blind to the fact that, since 1831, this dominion 
—over three millions of people—has been a source of weak- 
ness, dependence, anxiety, and care for the Papal See; that 
this task of keeping down a discontented population long- 
ing for the institutions of other countries has been as a 
leaden weight attached to the foot of the successor of the 
Apostles? And who will maintain that it is the Divine Will 
that this lamentable, unnatural state of things should drag on 
for an indefinite time—that the alternation of revolt, political 
trials, dungeoning, banishment, and foreign occupation should 
prolong itself indefinitely, as was contemplated by Count 
Rayneval ? 

We cannot conceal from ourselves that the situation is, in 
the highest degree, tragical. The Pope is bound, by the 
most sacred pledges, to surrender nothing of that which has 
been entrusted to his keeping; he must continually protest 
against the spoliation of his territory. The Papal Govern- 
ment can find few among the laity who have the necessary 
instruction for higher employments, and on whose fidelity he 


470 | APPENDIX. 


ean rely. As I said before, the Pope believes himself bound, 
by the duty of self-preservation, by the right of self-defence, 
to maintain the old system of ecclesiastical government, with- 
out serious change of form. And yet, as things now are, it 
is not to be hoped for that the people will be ever frankly 
reconciled to this form of clerical administration, and will 
renounce the rights and institutions subsisting in other parts 
of Italy. The difficulty of the position is heightened by the 
painful collisions in which the bishops, and, more or less, the 
whole body of the clergy throughout Italy are entangled. 
Let us not, however, forget that history is, before all 
things, God’s judgment; and that to this Judgment every 
human will and purpose must submit. We can only say, 
“Laissez passer la justice de Dieu.” Itis the beautiful privilege 
of God, that He, when men will to do evil, can turn that evil 
to good. The position of the Pope between the two allied 
Powers, who are throwing the dice over him, reminds us of 
the Lear of Shakespeare between his daughters, Goneril 
and Regan, and where no Cordelia is to be found. But Lear 
will not die; Goneril and Regan will reap what they have 
sown—the Church will say at last, “ My loss is a gain.” 
- Who will pronounce on the immediate future? Do we 
know what, is coming in Germany? Are we in Central 
Europe not approaching some mighty convulsion? Is 
not the Mazzini party lurking behind Piedmont to hurl 
Italy into the throes and tortures of a social and antichristian 
revolution? Who can say how much in Italy and elsewhere 
will meet destruction? One thing, however, is certain. 
Amidst all wrecks, one Institution will remain erect, will 
constantly emerge from the flood of revolution—for it is 
indestructible, immortal—it is the Chair of St. Peter. If I 
am asked, whence I draw this assurance, I may point to 
the Bible as my answer—“Thou art the Rock,” &c. 
But I will give another answer, derived from the very nature 
of the thing itself: The Papal See will not be destroyed, 
because it is reachable by no human power ; because no one 
on earth is strong and powerful enough to destroy it. If 
all the Powers of Europe were to unite for its destruction, 


APPENDIX. 471 


they could not effect it. All that human power can do is 
to compel it to make a pilgrimage; and, for a longer or 
shorter time, to keep its seat away from Rome. And, lastly, 
this Chair will not be destroyed, because it is indispensable 
and irreplaceable, for it forms the keystone of the whole build- 
ing of the Church. “ On ne détrutt que ce quwon remplace.” 
That the Papacy can ever be replaced by anything else, no 
one will seriously maintain. It is the keystone that holds 
the whole edifice of the Church together, that makes the 
Church what it is, and what it ought to be: a world-Church 
—the only society that has in earnest fulfilled the given 
purpose of God—that is, to embrace all humanity, and find 
room for all nations. 

Should this all-keeping, all-sustaining keystone be taken 
away, the whole will fall asunder, the Church will be split 
according to monarchies and nationalities ; from the Christian 
religion will be rent that noble jewel bestowed by her 
founders; that privilege that stands alone in history—the 
privilege and the strength to unite all nations in one great 
whole, yet without injury to them as nations. The faithful 
throughout the world desire not to belong to a French or a 
Spanish, a Bavarian or an Austrian Church; they desire to 
belong to ONE church, THE Church, the only Catholic Church 
—in other words, all will be subject to the Pope, and will, 
in community with him, feel and acknowledge themselves as 
members of “the Catholic Church.” 

The Papacy, then, will continue, because God wills it, 
because every Catholic believes it, because two hundred 
millions of men in all parts of the world desire it, because 
everyone who knows the condition of the world acknow- 
ledges it. There are enemies—many enemies—of the Tem- 
poral Power of the Papacy; but, within the Catholic world, 
there lives no enemy of the Pope’s Spiritual Power, or only 
such as are at the same time the enemies of the Christian 
religion. Iam not afraid to maintain that, even outside the 
pale of the Catholic Church, in the Protestant world, so far 
as it is really Christian, reflecting believers, especially among 
the laity, do not object to the Papal power in ‘tself. They 


472 APPENDIX. 


ask themselves: “Is there not something beautiful, something 
good, something willed of God, that the different Christian 
nations and countries should be united in one Church—one 
world-embracing community of faith and love—that the 
common affairs of the entire be conducted by one hand;” 
and the answer from all is—“ Yes.” If it be further asked : 
Shall this centre of church unity, this bearer of the highest 
authority of the Church, be a temporal monarch?” the 
answer will be—‘“ No—that is impossible; he must be no 
Emperor, no King, no President of a Republic; he must be a 
Pope—that is, he must be a Spiritual Father.” So soon, how- 
ever, as the observation is made, “ This real, living, concrete 
Pope is already there ; he dwells in Rome, and at present bears 
the name of Pius; and the larger part of assembled Christen- 
dom obeys him willingly and gladly—will you accept him?” 
Then there is heard an angry protest, a many-voiced cry of 
‘*No; him by no manner of means.” “And why not?” 
‘“‘ Because he does not teach as we teach.” “And what, then, 
shall he teach?” And a voice from one corner of Germany 
cries out: “ He shall teach what is agreeable to the German 
nation —that nation of thinkers and inquirers. He shall 
teach, therefore, as Wittenberg taught from 1520 to 1546. 
Then and there the true Christian doctrine, in completest 
purity, first saw the light.” Forthwith a different cry is 
heard from another corner of Germany: “ That is an obso- 
lete resting-place; in latter times the German people have 
made the grandest progress; they stand now on the summit 
of intelligence and theological penetration. In three centuries 
we have learned much, and unlearned more. The Pope must 
teach now, as they think and teach in the chief seats of German 
science, in Berlin, and, perhaps, in Leipzig or Gottingen. 
Then we would accept him.” ‘ Not so,” says a voice from the 
west; “neither Wittenberg nor Berlin, but Geneva is the birth- 
place of true Christianity ; if the Pope were converted 
to Calvin—if he teaches as the French Reformer taught—he 
may be something for us.” “ Let him take heed how he does 
that,” is the ery from the other side of the Channel, from 
England. “ Neither Wittenberg nor Geneva has discovered 


APPENDIX. 473 


genuine Christianity. That precious jewel has been decreed 
of Heaven to the Anglo-Saxon race. The true Church is 
that of which Queen Elizabeth was the mother: it is the 
English-episcopal Church. This Church alone maintains the 
true medium between the extremes of Continental Protes- 
tantism and Catholicism. Let the Pope become Anglican, 
and we will then let him talk to us.” “ You are all in error, 
sheep without a shepherd,” the North exclaims. “ The true 
Church, the beloved of God among churches, is that only 
which the shepherd chosen of God, the Czar in St. Peters- 
burg and his Holy Directing Synod, leads in the pastures of 
the Divine Word. Russia is, as the Emperor Nicholas has 
often called it, ‘Holy Russia, and the Russian people are 
‘ God’s chosen in these present times.’ Let the Pope acknow- 
ledge this and act accordingly, and we will willingly concede 
him the first rank amongst the five orthodox patriarchs.” 
And, lastly, a new and strongly represented party, particu- 
larly in Germany and in England, claims to be heard—the 
men of “The Church of the Future.” “ You all,” say they, 
“demean yourselves as if the true Church really existed 
anywhere, but that is a monstrous delusion. All existing 
church communities are but fragments, or the stones and 
building materials from which God will in nearer or remoter 
times construct the true church, responsive to all wants. 
Until that time, we have only provisional churches, and a 
provisional doctrine, and the Pope had better prepare himself 
for this Church, lying yet unborn in the lap of the future, and 
in the mean time put a note of interrogation to the doctrines 
hitherto prevalent in the Church.” 

So far these parties; and now, on the other side, the two 
hundred millions, Europeans, Asiatics, Americans, these 
world-churches, to whose community belong at least a frag- 
ment of every considerable people on the whole earth. These 
say unanimously, “ Our Christianity shall have no national 
supplementary flavour; it shall be no especial German, or 
Italian, or French, or English, or Russian Christianity—it 
shall not tickle the palate of this or that people, like a fiery 
artificially-prepared potation; our doctrine, our religious 


474 APPENDIX. 


practice, shall be and is a pure, clear stream of running water, 
colourless and odourless, the universal, wholesome drink for 
all, to-day as yesterday, to-morrow as a thousand years gone 
by. The Pope cannot, dare not teach otherwise than as 
those two hundred millions believe, and have long believed. 
And these millions will, must have a Pope; will not allow 
him to be taken from them, will not suffer him to fall. 
They prove that they are ready to make any sacrifice for his 
preservation; for his freedom. German, Irish, and French 
blood has flowed in his defence, and for a just and noble 
cause. We will also in the coming time, and before all the 
clergy in Europe as in America, willingly, joyfully, abun- 
dantly bring our tribute to alleviate the situation of our 
common Head and Father, and to furnish him with the means 
of free and vigorous action in his high office. But we will 
not cling to that which is transitory and accidental; we will 
not desire that any people shall be constrained to accept 
what we ourselves would not bear; we will not stand up for 
a system of government which is in point of fact not more 
than forty-five years old, and the deficiencies of which the 
Pope himself has acknowledged, and which, in the course of 
that time, has generated nothing but discontent and revolt 
amongst the majority of the people. He who will support 
himself on such a staff, when the staff has already become 
rotten, must run the risk of falling to the ground. 

The Greek myth says: When a new god, Apollo, was to 
be born, the island of Delos rose from the sea to be the birth- 
place of a deity. We will in all confidence expect that a 
Delos shall not be wanting to the Chair of St. Peter, should 
it even have to arise from the depths of the sea! 


THE END. 





R. BORN, PRINTER, GLOUCESTER STREET, REGENT’S PARK. 


13, GREAT MARLBOROUGH ST, LONDON, 


“MESSRS. HURST AND BLACKETT’S 
LIST OF NEW WORKS, 


PUBLISHED AND IN PREPARATION. 





THE LIFE OF J. M. W. TURNER, R.A. FROM 


Original Letters and Papers furnished by his Friends and Fellow Academi- 
cians. By WALTER THORNBURY. 2 vols, 8vo. with Portrait and other 
Illustrations. 30s. (Now ready.) 


THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF ADMIRAL 


SIR CHARLES NAPIER, K.C.B. From his Private Papers and Official 
Documents. By Major-General ELERS NAPIER. 2 vols. 8vo. with 
Portrait and Charts 30s. (Now ready.) 


FRENCH WOMEN OF LETTERS. By JULIA 
KAVANAGH. Author of “ Narwauis,”’ “Apeuze,” &c. 2 vols. post 
8vo. 21s. (Ready in November.) 


THE PRIVATE DIARY OF RICHARD DUKE OF 
BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS, K.G. 3 vols. with Portrait. (In 
the Press.) 


THE LIFE OF THE REV. EDWARD IRVING. WITH 


Selections from his Correspondence. By Mrs, OLIPHANT. 2 vols. with 
Portrait. (In the Press.) 


THE COURT AND SOCIETY FROM ELIZABETH TO 
ANNE. Illustrated from the Papers at Kimbolton. Edited by the Duxe 
oF MancueEsTerR. 2 vols. 8vo. with Illustrations. (In Preparation.) 


TWENTY-FIVE YEARS MUSICAL RECOLLEC- 


TIONS. By Henry F. Cuorzey. 2 vols. post 8vo. (In the Press.) 


MEMOIRS OF QUEEN HORTENSE, MOTHER OF 


NAPOLEON III. Edited by Lascettes Wraxaty. 2 vols. post 8yo. 
2ls. (Just ready.) 


2 ‘ HURST AND BLACKETT’S NEW PUBLICATIONS. 





MEMOIRS OF THE COURTS AND CABINETS OF 
WILLIAM IY. AND VICTORIA. From Orietnat Famity Docv- 
MENTS. By the late DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS, 
K.G. 2 vols. 8vo. with Portraits. 30s. 


Among the principal interesting subjects of these volumes will be fonnd :— 
The Re-establishment of the Royal Household—The Sailor King and his Court 
—The Duke of Wellington In, and Out of, Office—The Reform Cabinet and the 
Conservative Opposition—Career of Sir Robert Peel—Civil List Expenditure— 
Vicissitudes of Louis Philippe—Attacks on the Duke of Wellington—Corona- 
tions of William IV. and Queen Victoria—Rise and Fall of O’Connell—Lord Mel- 
bourne and his Ministry—Proceedings of the Kings of Hanover and Belgium—Pri- 
vate Negotiations at Apsley House—Secret History of Court Arrangements. &c. 


‘«These volumes bring to a conclusion the interesting series of memoirs which have been, 
published under the auspices of the Duke of Buckingham during the last few years. 
Founded on the traditions of a family whose members have long possessed the entrée into 
the charmed circle of courtiers and politicians, and enriched by the private and confidentiai 
letters of the great men of the time, these works possess a peculiar interest which is not 
always the attribute of state memoirs. They lift the veil of mystery with which the agents 
of court influence and cabinet intrigues shroud their actions from the eyes of the public 
and show us the motives which actuated our statesmen, and the degree in which the private 
expressions of their views coincided with the public declaration of their sentiments. The 
number of original documents in the present volumes invests the work with a fresh and 
authentic interest. As forming the conclusion of a valuable and important series, these 
memoirs should find a place on the shelves of every library.””—Sun. 

**This work itself, and the origina] documents which it contains, form a valuable con- 
tributior to the history of a most interesting and critical period. The narrative is every- 
where enlivened and illustrated by private letters, chiefly addressed to the Duke of 
Buckingham, from the Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of Cumberland, the 
Marquis of Londonderry, Lord Grenville, and other statesmen; and in addition to the 
narration of the fluctuation of parties, many interesting particulars are given respecting 
personages who acted chief parts on the political stage. The Duke of Wellington’s letters 
occupy a considerable space in the volumes, and are all worth perusal.’’—Post. 


MEMOIRS OF THE COURT OF GEORGE IV. FROM 


Orieinat Famity Documents. By the late DUKE OF BUCKING- 
HAM AND CHANDOS, K.G. 2 vols. 8vo. with Portraits. 30s. 


**The country is very much indebted to the Duke of Buckingham for the publication of 
these volumes—to our thinking the most valuable of the contributions to recent history 
which he has yet compiled from his family papers. Besides the King, the Duke of 
Buckingham’s canvass is full of the leading men of the day—Castlereagh, Liverpool, Can- 
ning, Wellington, Peel, and their compeers. We are sure that noreader, whether he seeks 
for gossip, or for more sterling information, will be disappointed by the book. There are 
several most characteristic letters of the Duke of Wellingtun.”-—John Bull. 


MEMOIRS OF THE COURT OF THE REGENCY. 


From OriginaAt Famity Documents. By the late DUKE OF BUCK- 
INGHAM AND CHANDOS, K.G. 2 vols. 8vo., with Portraits, 30s. 


“‘Here are two goodly volumes on the English Court; volumes full of new 
sayings, pictures, anecdotes, and scenes. The Duke of Buckingham travels over nine years 
of English history. But what years those were, from 1811 to 1820! What events at home 
and abroad they bore to the great bourne!—from the accession of the Regent to power to 
the death of George III.—ineluding the fallof Perceval; the invasion of Russia, and the 
war in Spain; the battles of Salamanca and Borodino; the fire of Moscow; the retreat of 
Napoleon; the conquest of Spain; the surrender of Napoleon ; the return from Elba; the 
Congress of Vienna; the Hundred Days ; the crowning carnage of Waterloo; the exile to 
St. Helena; the return of the Bourbons; the settlement of Europe; the public scandals at 
the English Court; the popular discontent, andthe massacre of Peterloo! On many parts 
of this story the documents published by the Duke of Buckingham cast new jets of light, 
clearing up much secret history. Old stories are confirmed—new traits of character are 


brought out. In short, many new and pleasant additions are made to our knowledge of 
those times.”— Atheneum, 


HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY. 3 





WORKS BY MISS FREER. 


HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF HENRY IV. KING OF 


FRANCE AND NAVARRE. From numerous Original Sources. By 
MARTHA WALKER FREER. 2 vols. with Portraits, 21s. 


*“‘ Various circumstances combine to make us regard the Life of Henry IV. as one of the 
most attractive in the wide range of biography. The chequered nature of his career from 
childhood to manhood, the perils that environed him in a Court hostile to his religion and 
race, his unfortunate marriage, his personal bravery, his skill as a commander—these and 
many other characteristics that will suggest themselves to our readers, cause us to hail 
Miss Freer’s new work asa welcome addition to our stock of books, It is a well-known 
feature in Miss Freer’s works, that not content with the ordinary sources of information to 
which popular writers have recourse, she investigates for herself the MS. documents of the 
period under review, and is thus enabled to supply us with new facts, and to bring us face 
to face with the persons whose actions are recorded. This, which constitutes one of the 
great charms of M. Michelet, as a historian, is likewise a marked characteristic of Miss 
Freer, and confers a great additional value upon her historical portraits.’—Critic. 

“‘To become the chronicler of such a reign as that of Henry 1V. is no mean task, and 
Miss Freer has accomplished it with singular good taste, good sense, and vigour. The 
story never flags. Our authoress is always faithfal, accurate, and intelligent. Her style 
is good, and her subject abounds with interest for every student of history.”’— Herald. 

“‘ We know no works of this kind, with the exception, perhaps, of Macauiay’s history, 
which are more pleasant reading than the histories of Miss Freer. The charm of the style 
and manner, and the accuracy of the details, combine to render her works a valuable 
addition to our literary treasures.”—John Bull. 

“ In telling the reign of Henry IV., Miss Freer has one of the most interesting portions 
of French history for her story. She has told it from first to last with taste, using a clear, 
vigorous style,”’— Examiner. 


HENRY IV. AND MARIE DE MEDICI. FORMING 


Part II. of “ The History of the Reign of Henry IV. King of France and 
Navarre.” By MISS FREER. 2 vols. with Portraits. 21s. 


** Miss Freer’s ability and research have raised her to a conspicuous position among 
our historical writers. Among the most prominent of her qualities is a rare spirit of 
moderation and impartiality. Important and eventful as the reign of Henry IV. was, its 
details are little known by general readers among us, and therefore in presenting so 
complete and interesting a narrative Miss Freer has done good service to the public, 
besides enhancing her own well-earned reputation.”—Sun. = e 

“In these volumes we have the second part of a work the greatest to which Miss 
Freer has dedicated her powers. She draws her materials from sources mostly original, 
and she has selected for illustration a period the interest of which can scarcely be said to be 
second to any in modern times. There was romance in Henry the Fourth’s character and 
in his career, and events of importance were grouped around his life. Miss Freer 
writes only after the most conscientious research, and with amastery of the subject which 
will of itself go far towards explaining the vitality and animation which so distinguish her 
productions. Where a style of such supreme attractiveness is combined with such 
accuracy in detail, itis impossible not to give the work a high place in the literature of 
the day.”"—Sunday Times. 


HENRY III. KING OF FRANCE AND POLAND; 


HIS COURT AND TIMES. From numerous unpublished sources. 
By MISS FREER, 3 vols. post 8vo. with portraits, 31s. 6d. 


“Miss Freer having won for herself the reputation of a most painstaking and trust- 
worthy historian not less than an accomplished writer, by her previous memoirs of 
sovereigns of the houses of Valois and Navarre, will not fail to meet with a most - 
cordial and hearty welcome for her present admirable history of Henry III., the last of 
the French kings of the house of Valois. We refer our readers to the volumes them- 
selves for the interesting details of the life and reign of Henry III., his residence in 
Poland, his marriage with Louise de Lorraine, his cruelties, his hypocrisies, his penances, 
his assassination by the hands of the monk Jaques Clément, &c. Upon these points, as 
well as with reference to other persons who occupied a prominent position during this 
period, abundant information is afforded by Miss Freer; and the public will feel with us 
that a deep debt of gratitude is due to that lady for the faithful and admirable manner in 
which she has pourtrayed the Court and Times of Henry the Third.’’—Chronicle. . 


4 HURST AND BLACKETT’S NEW PUBLICATIONS. 





ELIZABETH DE VALOIS, QUEEN OF SPAIN, AND 


THE COURT OF PHILIP II. From numerous unpublished sources in 
the Archives of France, Italy, and Spain. By MISS FREER. 2 vols 
post 8vo. with fine Portraits by Hearu, 21s. 


“It is not attributing too much to Miss Freer to say that herself and Mr. Prescott are 
probably the best samples of our modern biographers. The present volumes will be a boon 
to posterity for which it will be grateful. Equally suitable for instruction and amusement, 
they portray one of the most interesting characters and periods of history.’’-—John Bull. 


THE LIFE OF MARGUERITE D’ANGOULEME, 
QUEEN of NAVARRE, SISTER of FRANCIS I. By MISS FREER. 
Second Edition, 2 vols. with fine Portraits, 21s. 


“This is a very useful and amusing book. It is a good work, very welldune. The 
authoress is quite equal in power and grace to Miss Strickland. She must have spent great 
‘time and labour in collecting the information, which she imparts in an easy and agreeable 
manner. It is difficult to lay down her book after having once begun it..’’—Standard, 


THE LIFE OF JEANNE ceca QUEEN OF 
NAVARRE. By MISS FREER. Cheap Edition, 1 vol. 5s. with Portrait. 


*“‘This book reflects the highest credit on the industry and wages § of Miss Freer. 
Nothing can be more interesting than her story of the life of Jeanne D’Albret, and the 
narrative is as trustworthy as it is attractive.”— Post. 


THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE COURT OF 


FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XV. Edited, from Rare and Unpublished 
Documents, by Dr. CHALLICE. 2 vols. with fine Portraits. 21s. 


“We recommend these volumes to our readers as amusing, interesting, and instruc- 
‘ tive.’—Critie. 
“A valuable and interesting work. It unites the fascination of a romance with the 
integrity of history.””—Chronicle. 
“‘ The interest of this work will be readily acknowledged. Every page contains a con- 
tribution to the general chronicle of the times, while anecdotes and sketches of character 
abound.”’—IJilustrated News. 


MEMORIALS OF ADMIRAL LORD GAMBIER, G.C.B. 


with Original Letters from Lorps Cuatraam, Netson, CASTLEREAGH, 
Muuerave, Hottanp, Mr. Cannine, &c, Edited, from Family Pa- 
pers, by Lapy CHATTERTON, Seconp Epirion, 2 vols. 8vo, 28s. 


** These volumes are an important addition to our naval literature; but they are also 
valuable for the light they throw on the domestic history of the time. The correspon- 
dence is particularly rich in anecdotes, glimpses of society and manners, and traits of 
character.”—U. S. Magazine. 


A BOOK ABOUT DOCTORS. BY J. C. JEAFFRESON, 
Ese., New, Revised and Cheaper Edition, 1 vol., 10s. 6d. 


“This is a rare book; a compliment to the medical profession and an acquisition to 
its members; a book to be read and re-read ; fit for the study and the consulting-room, as 
well as the drawing-room table and the circulating library. Mr. Jeaffreson takes a com- 
prehensive view of the social history of the profession, and illustrates its course by a 
series of biographic and domestic sketches, from the feudal era down to the present day. 
The chapters on the Doctor as a bon-vivant, the generosity and parsimony, the quarrels and 
loves of physicians, are rich with anecdotes of medical celebrities. But Mr. Jeaffreson 
does not merely amuse. The pages he devotes to the exposure and history of charlatanry 
are of scarcely less value to the student of medicine than the student of manners. We 
thank Mr. Jeaffreson most heartily for the mirth and solid information of his work. All 
the members of our professiou will be sure to read it.””—Lancet. 

“A pleasant book. Out of hundreds of volumes, Mr. Jeaffreson has collected 
thousands of good things, adding much that appears in print for the first ins, and which 
of course gives increased value to this very readable book.’’—Atheneum. 


HURST AND BLACKETT’S NEW PUBLICATIONS. 5 





LODGE’S PEERAGE AND BARONETAGE. Under 


THE EspectaL ParronaGE or Her Masxsty anp H.R.H. THE 
Prince Consort. Corrected throughout by the Nobility. Tuirtiera 
EpirTr1on, in 1 vol. royal 8vo., with the Arms beautifully engraved, hand- 
somely bound, with gilt edges, price 31s. 6d. 


LopGr’s PEERAGE AND BARONETAGE is acknowledged to be the most 
complete, as well as the most elegant, work of the kind. As an established and 
authentic anthority on all questions respecting the family histories, honours, 
and connections of the titled aristocracy, no work has ever stood so high. It is 
published under the especial patronage of Her Majesty, and His Royal Highness 
the Prince Consort, and is annually corrected throughout, from the personal 
communications of the Nobility. It is the only work of its class, in which, 
the type being kept constantly standing, every correction is made in its proper 
place to the date of publication, an advantage which gives it supremacy over all 
its competitors. Independently of its full and authentic information respecting 
the existing Peers and Baronets of the realm, the most sedulous attention is 
given in its pages to the collateral branches of the various noble families, and 
the names of many thousand individuals are introduced, which do not appear in 
other records of the titled classes. For its authority, correctness, and facility of 
arrangement, and the beauty ofits typography and binding, the work is justly en- 
titled to the high place it occupies on the tables of Her Majesty and the Nobility. 


** Lodge’s Peerage must supersede all other works of the kind, for two reasons; first, it 
is on a better plan; and, secondly, it is better executed. We can safely pronounce it to be 
the readiest, the most useful, and exactest of modern works on the subject.’”’—Spectat 


** A work which corrects all errors of former works. It is the production of a herald, 
we had almost said, by birth, but certainly by profession and studies, Mr. Lodge, the Norroy 
King of Arms. It is a most useful publication.’’°—Times. 


**As perfect a Peerage of the British Empire as we are ever likely to see published. 
Great pains have been taken to make it as complete and accurate as possible. The work 
is patronised by Her Majesty and the Prince Consort; and it is worthy of a place in every 
gentleman’s library, as well as in every public institution.”—Herald. _ 


**As a work of contemporaneous history, this yolumeis of great value—the materials 
having been derived from the most authentic sources and in the majority of cases emanating 
from the noble families themselves. It contains all the needful information respecting the 
nobility of the Empire.””—Post. 


*‘ This work should form a portion of every gentleman’s library. At all times, the infor- 
mation which it contains, derived from official sources exclusively at the command of the 
author, is of importance to most classes of the community; to the antiquary it must be 
invaluable, for implicit reliance may be placed on its contents.” —Glode. 


“‘This work derives great value from the high authority of Mr. Lodge. The plan 
is excellent.”—Literary Gazette. 





** When any book has run through so many editions, its reputation is so indelibly 
stamped, that it requires neither criticism nor praise. It is but just, however, to say, that 
*‘ Lodge’s Peerage and Baronetage’ is the most elegant and accurate, and the best of its 
class. The chief point of excellence attaching to this Peerage consists neither in its 
elegance of type nor its completeness of illustration, but in its authenticity, which is insured 
by the letter-press being always kept standing, and by immediate alteration being made 
whenever any change takes place, either by death or otherwise, amongst the nobility of the 
United Kingdom. The work has obtained the special patronage of Her Most Gracious 
Majesty, and of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort, which patronage has never been 
better or more worthily bestowed.””— Messenger. 


“* * Lodge’s Peerage and Baronetage’ has become, as it were, an ‘institution’ of this 
country; in other words, it is indispensable, and cannot be done without, by any person 
having business in the great world. The authenticity of this valuable work, as regards the 
several topics to which it refers, has never been ded, and, quently, it must be 
received as one of the most important contributions to social and domestic history extant. 
As a book of reference—indispensible in most cases, useful in all—it should bein the 
hands of every one having connections in, or transactions with, the aristocracy.’’—Odserver . 





6 HURST AND BLACKETT’S NEW PUBLICATIONS. 





LODGE’S GENEALOGY OF THE PEERAGE AND 
BARONETAGE OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE. A New anp Revisep 
Epirion. Uniform with “ Tue Perrace” Volume, with the arms 
beautifully engraved, handsomely bound with gilt edges, price 31s. 6d. 

The desire very generally manifested for a republication of this volume has 
dictated the present entire revision of its contents. The Armorial Bearings 
prefixed to the History of each Noble Family, render the work complete in 
itself and uniform with the Volume of THe PrEracer, which it is intended to 
accompany and illustrate. The object of the whole Work, in its two distinct 
yet combined characters, has been useful and correct information; and the 
careful attention devoted to this object throughout will, it is hoped, render the 
Work worthy of the August Patronage with which it is honoured and of the 
liberal assistance accorded by its Noble Correspondents, and will secure from 
them and from the Public, the same cordial reception it has hitherto experienced. 
The great advantage of “ The Genealogy’”’ being thus given in a separate volume, 
Mr. Lodge has himself explained in the Preface to “ The Peerage.” 


THE BOOK OF ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD, AND 
DECORATIONS OF HONOUR OF ALL NATIONS ;. COMPRISING 
AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF EACH ORDER, MILITARY, NAVAL 
AND CIVIL; with Lists of the Knights and Companions of each British 
Order. EMBELLISHED witH FrveE HuNnpRep Fac-sIMILE COLOURED 
ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE INSIGNIA OF THE VARIOUS ORDERS. Edited 
by SIR BERNARD BURKE, Ulster King of Arms. 1 vol. royal 8vo., 
handsomely bound, with gilt edges, price £2. 2s. 


“ This isindeed a splendid book. It is an uncommon combination of a library book 
of reference and a book for a boudoir, undoubtedly uniting beauty and utility. It will 
soon find its place in every library and drawing-room,”’—Glode. 


THE LIFE AND TIMES OF GEORGE VILLIERS, 
DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM. By MRS. THOMSON. 3 vols. 


“These volumes will increase the well-earned reputation of their clever and popular 
author. The story of the royal favourite’s career is told by Mrs. Th very h tly, 
and is enriched abundantly with curious and entertaining’ details— of which a full publication 
is now made for the first time.”—Ezaminer. 


BRITISH ARTISTS, from HOGARTH to TURNER;- 
A Series or Brograpuicat Sxetcues. By WatteR THORNBURY. 2¥V 


**The interest of Mr. Thornbury’s pictures is undeniable—a result partly due to the 
talent of the painter, partly to his subjects; for next to the lives of actors those of artists 
are among the most interesting to read. Especially so are those of our English artists of 
the last century—lives abounding in contrasted and often dark hues, interwoven with the 
history of men still remarkable in letters and polities. Capital subjects for a biographer 
with a turn for dramatic and picturesque realisation are such men as the-bright, mercurial 
Gaiusborough; the moody, neglected Wilson; Reynolds, the bland and self-possessed ; 
Barry, the fierce and squalid; shrewd, miserly Nollekins; the foppish, visionary Conway ; 
the spendthrift Sherwin; the stormy Fuseli; Morland, the reprobate; Lawrence, the 
courtly. The chapters devoted to these heroes of the English schools are not so much 
condensed biographies as dramatic glimpses of the men and their environments, Certain 
striking scenes and circumstances in their lives are vividly and picturesquely painted— 
made to re-live before our eyes with all the vraisemblance of the novelist.”—Critic. 


MEMOIRS OF ROYAL LADIES. BY EMILY &. 
HOLT. 2 volumes post 8vo. with Illustrations. 21s. 


“These attractive ‘Memoirs of Royal Ladies,’ accounts of whose lives have never 
before appeared in our language, are full of entertaining matter, while they display abun 
dant evidence that they are the result of much research and careful study.’’—Press. 





VOYAGES AND TRAVELS. 7 





TRAVELS IN THE REGIONS OF THE AMOOR, 


AND THE RusstaN ACQUISITIONS ON THE CONFINES OF INDIA AND 
CuINA; WITH ADVENTURES AMONG THE MountTAIN KIRGHIS, AND THE 
Mansours, Manyares, Touncouz, Touzemtz, GoLpI, AND GELYAKS. 
By T. W. ATKINSON, F.G.S., F.R.G.S., Author of ‘‘ Oriental and Western 
Siberia.” Dedicated by permission, to Her Masesty. Srconp Epition. 
Royal 8vo., with Map and 83 Lllustrations. £2 2s., elegantly bound 


“Our readers have not now to learn for the first time the quality of Mr. Atkinson as an 
explorer and a writer. The comments we made on, and the extracts we selected from, his 
* Oriental and Western Siberia’ will have sufficed to show that in the former character he 
takes rank with the most daring of the class, and that in the latter he is scarcely to be 
surpassed for the lucidity, picturesqueness, and power, with which he pourtrays the scenes 
through which he has travelled, and the perils or the pleasures which encountered him on 
the way. The present volume is not inferior to its predecessor. It deals with civilization, 
semi-civilization, and barbarous life. It takes us through localities, some of which are 
little, others not at all, known to even the best read men in the literature of travel. The 
entire volume is admirable for its spirit, unexaggerated tone, and the mass of fresh materials 
by which this really new world is made accessible to us. ‘The followers, too, of all the ‘ ologies 
will meet with something in these graghic pages of peculiar interest to them. It is a noble 
work.’’— Atheneum. 


‘*We must refer to Mr. Atkinson as one of the most intelligent and successful of the 
civilized travellers of ourown day. By far the most important contribution to the history 
of these regions is to be found in Mr. Atkinson’s recent publication on the Amoor—a work 
which derives equal interest from his well-stored portfolio and his pen.”—Edinburgh 
Review. 


“This is in every respect an aureus liber. Its magnificent apparel not inaptly sym- 
bolises its magnificent contents. Mr. Atkinson has here given us a narrative which could 
be told by no other living Englishman. The intrinsic interest of that narrative is enhanced 
by Mr. Atkiason’s gift of vigorous and graceful description. Thanks to the power of his 
pen, and the still more remarkable power of his pencil we follow his travels with eager 
interest and anxiety. He himself is the chief object of interest, from his thirst for adventure 
and daring exploits, and the countless shapes of terror and death that he encounters. 
The work is a magnificent contribution to the literature of travel. More useful and 
pleasant reading can no where be found.”—Literary Gazette. 


“*Mr. Atkinson has here presented the reading world with another valuable book of 
travels. It is as interesting, as entertaining, and as well written as his previous work. It 
is a volume which will not only afford intellectual entertainment of the highest order, but 
fitted to instruct both the philosopher and the statesman. The vast territorial acquisitions 
lately made by Russia in the Northern parts of Central Asia along the whole frontier of 
China, is described by an eye witness well qualified to estimate their real value and political 
advantages. Our readers, we feel sure, will peruse this interesting book of travels for 
themseives. It contains something for every taste.”—Daily News 


“‘ The success of Mr. Atkinson’s ‘ Oriental and Western Siberia’ has happily induced 
him to write aud publish another volume, and written with the same unflagging interest. 
A more pleasing as well as more novel book of travels it would be difficult to find. The 
illustrations are admirably executed, and they add ten fold to the value of a volume already 
possessing intrinsic merits of the highest kind. Independently of the deep interest it excites 
asa traveller’s tale, the work has other claims. It presents peculiar geographical and ethnolo- 
gical information, and points ont a boundless field of commerce to English enterprise. It 
marks with a decided pen the gradual advances of Russia towards British India, and the 
sweeping rush of her conquering energy from Siberia to the Pacific. Thus Mr. Atkinson’s 
book has not only a literary, but a political and commercial importance, There is food for 
all readers and interest for all.’”’—Glode. 


*«'This is noble and fascinating book, belonging in right both of subject and treatment 
to the choicest class of travel literature. ‘he vast panorama unfolded is one of the most 
marvellous in the world, and has hitherto been among the least known to the nations of 
the west. It is now set before them with exquisite clearness and force of expression by one 
who has the highest claims to confidence as an observer and delineator.”’”— Spectator. 


“A really magnificent volume, which for many years to come must be a standard 
authority upon the country of which ittreats. It is very interesting and abounds in 
incident and anecdote both personal and local.’’—Chrenicle. 


8 HURST AND BLACKETT’S NEW PUBLICATIONS. 





ORIENTAL AND WESTERN SIBERIA; A NAR- 
RATIVE OF SEVEN YEARS’ EXPLORATIONS AND ADVENTURES IN SIBERIA, 
Moneotra, THE KircGuis Steppes, CHINESE TARTARY, AND CENTRAL 
Asta. By THOMAS WITLAM ATKINSON. In one large volume, 
royal 8vo., Price £2. 2s., elegantly bound. Embellished with upwards 
of 50 Illustrations, including numerous beautifully coloured plates, from 
drawings by the Author, and a map. ; 


“*By virtue alike of its text and its pictures, we place this book of travel in the first 
rank among those illustrated gift books now so much sought by the public. Mr. Atkinson’s 
book is most readable. The geographer finds in it notice of ground heretofore left 
undescribed, the ethnologist, geologist, and botanist, find notes and pictures, too, of which 
they know the value, the sportman’s taste is gratified by chronicles of sport, the lover of 
adveuture will find a number of perils and escapes to hang over, aud the lover of a frank 
good-humoured way of speech will find the book a pleasant one in every page. Seven 
years of wandering, thirty-nine thousand five hundred miles of moving to and fro in a wild 
and almost unknown country, should yield a book worth reading, and they do.”—Ewraminer. 


** A book of travels which in value and sterling interest must take rank as a landmark 
in geographical literature. Its coloured illustrations and wood engravings are of a high 
order, and add a great charm to the narrative. Mr. Atkinson has travelled where it is 
believed no European has been before. He has seen nature in the wildest, sublimest, and 
also the most beautiful aspects the old world can present. These he has depicted by pen 
and pencil. He has done both well. Many a fireside will rejoice in the determination which 
converted the artist into an author. Mr. Atkinson jis a thorough Englishman, brave and 
accomplished, a lover of adventure and sport of every kind. He kuows enough of mineralogy, 
geology, and botany to impart a scientific interest to his descriptions and drawings ; 
possessing a keen sense of humour, he tells many aracy story. The sportsman and the 
lover of adventure, whether by flood or field, will find ample stores in the stirring tales of 
his interesting travels.”—Daily News. 


** An animated and intelligent narrative, appreciably enriching the literature of English 
travel. Mr. Atkinson’s sketches were made by express permission of the late Emperor of 
Russia. Perhaps no English artist was ever before admitted into this enchanted land of 
history, or provided with the talisman and amulet of a general passport; and well has Mr. 
Atkinson availed himself of the privilege. Our extracts will have served to illustrate the 
originality and variety of Mr. Atkinson’s observations and adventures during his protracted 
wanderings of nearly forty thousand miles. Mr. Atkinson’s pencil was never idle, and he 
has certainly brought home with him the forms, and colours, and other characteristics ofa 
most extraordinary diversity of groups and scenes. Asa sportsman Mr. Atkinson enjoyed 
a plenitude of excitement. His narrative is well stored with incidents of adventure. 
His ascent of the Bielouka is a chapter of the most vivid romance of travel, yet it is less 
attractive than his relations of wanderings across the Desert of Gobi and up the Tangnou 
Chain.”—Atheneum. 


“We predict that Mr. Atkinson’s ‘Siberia’ will very often assume the shape of a 
Christmas Present or New Year’s Gift, as it possesses, in an eminent degree, four very 
precious and suitable qualities for that purpose,—namely, usefulness, elegance, instruction 
and novelty. It is a work of great value, not merely on account of its splendid illustrations, 
but for the amount it contains of authentic and highly interesting intelligence concerning 
regions which, in all probability, has never, previous to Mr. Atkinson’s explorations, been 
visited by an European. Mr, Atkinson’s adventures are toldin a manly style. The valuable 
and interesting information the book contains, gathered at a vast expense, is lucidly 
arranged, and altogether the work is one that the.author-artist may well be proud of, and 
with which those who study it cannot fail to be delighted.””—John Bull. 


** To the geographer, the geologist, the ethnographer, the sportsman, and to those who 
read only for amusement, this will be an acceptable volume, Mr. Atkinson is rot only an 
adventurous traveller, but a correct and amusing writer.”’—Literary Gazette. 


VOYAGES AND TRAVELS. 9 





THE OKAVANGO RIVER; A NARRATIVE OF 


TrRaveL, ExpLorRaATION AND ADVENTURE. By CHARLES JOHN 
ANDERSSON. Author of “ Lake Ngami.’’ 1 vol. 8vo. with Portrait of the 
Author, and numerous Illustrations. 21s. bound. 


“Mr. Andersson’s book, from the number of well-told adventures, its unpretending 
style, its rich fund of information, and spirited illustrations, will command a wide circle 
of readers, and become a favourite with all those who can appreciate daring perseverance, 
and a buoyant spirit under overwhelming difficulties. The interest of his story never flags 
for a moment.’’—Atheneum. 


‘Mr. Andersson is one of those whom the world and the Geographical Society delight 
to honour. Not for adventures only, but for science’s sake does he betake himself to the 
wilds, in which he has all the delights attractive to the true sportsman, but in which he 
fearlessly encounters all perils that he may discover a river, depict a new people, or 
bring to light a fresh species. His ‘Lake Ngami’ was deservedly popular; and, on behalf 
of the reading world, we are glad to welcome its successor, ‘The Okavango River.’ The 
volume, which is profusely and splendidly illustrated, will take a high place among works 
of adventure and exploration. There can be no question of the great service Mr. Anders- 
son has rendered to geographical science.”— Herald. 

‘This book illustrated with many animated pictures of adventures connected with the 
wild sports of the journey it de-cribes, is one that will be popular as a budget of trust- 
worthy travellers’ tales, besides being valued for the information it gives to geographers. 
Many adventures and perils from men as well as from lions, give interest to the account 
of Mr. Andersson’s journey from the Okavango; and when allis told we have in the four 
closing chapters an excellent account of the west coast of Southern Africa, a region which 
this traveller has more than ouce explored.”’—EHzaminer. 


** Mr. Andersson’s adventures stamp him as an one of the most enterprising travellers 
of modern times, and well worthy to take rank by the side of Livingstone and others, who 
have attempted to penetrate the interior of the great African continent. Every page of his 
present work is full of interest.””—Odserver. 

“Mr. Andersson’s narrative of his discovery of the Okavango River is very interesting. 
The book is one which will please alike the traveller, the sportsman, and the student of 
natural history, K abounds in startling adventures,’’—Morning Post. 

** Mr. Andersson’s new work is full of startling accounts of encounters with all kinds of 
wild beasts—the elephant, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, the lion, the giraffe, &c.—all of 
which will be read with delight by the sportsman; while the traveller and the student of 
geography or ethnology will find plenty of food for the mind in the other parts of the 
book. It is profusely and beautifully illustrated, and cannot but become one of the favourite 
works of the season.”’—Bell’s Life. . 


LAKE NGAMI; OR EXPLORATIONS AND DIS- 


COVERIES DURING Four YEARS’ WANDERINGS IN THE WILDS oF 
Soura-WestTERN Arrica. By CHARLES JOHN ANDERSSON. Second 
Edition.1 vol. royal 8vo., with Map and upwards of 50 Illustrations, repre- 
senting Sporting Adventures, Subjects of Natural History, &c. 


“‘This narrative of African explorations and discoveries is one of the most important 
geographical works that have lately appeared. It contains the account of two journeys 
made between the years 1850 and 1854, in the first of which the countries of the Damaras 
and the Ovambo, previously scarcely known in Europe, were explored; and in the second 
the newly-discovered Lake Ngami was reached by a route that had been deemed imprac- 
ticable, but which proves to be the shortest and the best. The work contains much scientific 
and accurate information as to the geology, the scenery, products, and resources of the 
regions explored, with notices of the religion, manners, and customs of the native tribes. 
The continual sporting adventures, and other remarkable occurrences, intermingled with 
the narrative of travel, make the book as interesting to read as a romance, as, indeed, a 
good book of travels ought always to be. The illustrations by Wolf are admirably designed, 
and most of them represent scenes as striking as any witnessed by Jules Gérard or Gordon 
Cumming.”—Literary Gazette. : 


10 HURST AND BLACKETT’S NEW PUBLICATIONS. 





TRAVELS IN THE HOLY LAND. By FREDRIKA 


BREMER. Translated by Mary Howirr. 2 vols. (Just ready.) 


TWO YEARS IN SWITZERLAND AND ITALY. 


By Freprixa Bremer. Translated by Mary Howirr. 2 vols. 


“This is certainty one of the best works Miss Bremer has ever yet produced. We 
can scarcely find words adequately to express our admiration of the manner in which 
she has told all she saw and felt during the two years she passed in the loveliest parts 
of Europe. The book is the best that ever was written on such themes.”—WMessenger. 


SIX YEARS OF A TRAVELLERS LIFE IN 
WESTERN AFRICA. By Francisco Vatvez, Arbitrator at Loanda, 
and the Cape of Good Hope. 2 vols. with Illustrations. 

** A book of value and importance.” — Messenger. 


TEN YEARS’ WANDERINGS AMONG THE ETHIO- 
PIANS ; with Sketches of the Manners and Customs of the Civilised and 
Uncivilised Tribes from Senegal to Gaboon. By T. J. HUTCHINSON, 
F.R.G.S., Consul for Fernando Po. 8vo. with Illustrations. 14s. 


“*A work of very considerable interest, that cannot fail to be highly valued by the 
merchant and the trader, as well as by the philantrophist, the ethnologist, the geographi- 
eal explorer, and the man of science.’’— Observer. 


THE MEDICAL MISSIONARY IN CHINA: A NAR- 
RATIVE OF TWENTY YEARS’ EXPERIENCE. By Witutam Lock- 
HART, F.R.C.S. F.R.G.S, of the London Missionary Society. Second 
Edition, 1 vol. 8vo. 


** We heartily commend this work to our readers. It contains more information upon 
the social life of the teeming millions of Chinese than any book it has been our fortune to 
meet.’’— Baptist Magazine. 


TRAVELS IN EASTERN AFRICA, WITH THE 


NARRATIVE OF A RESIDENCE IN MOZAMBIQUE: 1856 to 1859. 
By LYONS McLEOD, Esq. F.R.G.S.. &c. Late British Consul in Mo- 
zambique. 2 vols. With Map and Illustrations. 


A RESIDENCE AT THE COURT OF MEER ALI 


MOORAD; wir Witp Sports INTHE VALLEY OF THE INDus. By Carr. 
Lanetey, late Madras Cavalry. 2 vols. 8vo. with Illustrations. 30s. 


SIXTEEN YEARS OF AN ARTISTS LIFE IN 
MOROCCO, SPAIN, AND THE CANARY ISLANDS. By MRS. 
ELIZABETH MURRAY. 2 vols. 8vo. with Coloured Illustrations. 


“Mrs. Murray’s book is like her painting, luminous, rich and fresh. We welcome it (as 
the public will also do) with sincere pleasure.’”’—Atheneum. 


A SUMMER RAMBLE in the HIMALAYAS; with 
SPORTING ADVENTURES IN THE VALE OF CASHMERE. Edited 
by MounTaIneEER. 8vo. with Illustrations. 15s. 


‘This volume is altogether a pleasant one. It is written with zest and edited with care. 
The incidents and adventures of the journey are most fascinating to a sportsman and very 
nteresting to a traveller.”,—Atheneum : 


HURST AND BLACKETT’S NEW PUBLICATIONS. 11 





THE ENGLISH SPORTSMAN IN THE WESTERN 


PRAIRIES. By the Hon. Granriey Berketey. Royal 8vo. with 
numerous I]lustrations. 


“ This is a splendid volume, full of adventure and anecdote. One of the most skilful and 
ardent of our sportsmen, Mr, Grantley Berkeley is at the same time an excellent writer 
upon sporting matters. This is a very rare combination of qualities, for, generally speaking, 
the men who understand sport are unable to write, whilst those who can write are pro- 
foundly ignorant of sport. Now Mr. Grantley Berkeley not only understands his topics 
thoroughly, but is able to write with ease, freshness, and vigour about them. There is a 
zest in his descriptions which only a true sportsman can feel. There is a-breath of the 
woods, an echo of the hunting-horn in his writings. We can see the exciting picture 
which his words would present.”— Critic. 

“* We heartily commend this handsome book to the gentlemen of England. Its author 
is the present Cesar of sport, who unites to his feats of hunting the ability of recording 
them.’—Herald. © p 


ESSAYS FROM THE QUARTERLY. BY JAMES 


HANNAY. lvol. 8vo. 14s. 


‘* A very agreeable and valuable addition to our literature. As a writer Mr. Hannay 
possesses very remarkable merit indeed. He is eminentiy readable, he has a vast deal of 
shrewd common sense, and a brilliancy of illustrative comparison quite unparalleled by 
any author of the present day. We could not point to any series of articles, not even 
excepting those of Macaulay, which are easier reading.””—Spectator. : J 


DOMESTIC SKETCHES IN RUSSIA. By LADY 
CHARLOTTE PEPYS. 2 vols. post 8vo. 21s. 


** This very agreeable book presents a photograph of Russian home life, the simplicity 
of whichis as charming as the manner of relating it is attractive.” Messenger. 


LIGHTS AND SHADOWS OF FRENCH MILITARY 


LIFE. By the Author of ‘‘Fiemisu Interiors,” &c. 3 vols. with 
Illustrations. (Just ready.) 


REALITIES OF PARIS LIFE. BY THE AUTHOR 


of “ Fremisa Inreriors,” &c. 3 vols. with Illustrations. 31s. 6d. 


** Realities of Paris Life’ is a good addition to Paris books, and important as affording 
true and sober pictures of the Paris poor.””—Atheneum. 


DOMESTIC MEMOIRS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY, 
and the COURT OF ENGLAND, chiefly at SHENE and RICHMOND. 

By Fo.kestone Witurams, F.G.S., 3 vols. with Portraits, 
“In the prosecution of his labours, the author has consulted antiquaries and arche- 
ologists, and examined contemporary authorities. The result is, a work, pleasant and 


instructive, abundant in anecdote, and agreeably gossipping. It, moreover, evinces con- 
siderable research, and a generally sound historical judgment.’’—Spectator. 


THE RIDES AND REVERIES OF MR. SOP SMITH. 
By MARTIN F. TUPPER, D.C.L., F.R.S., Author of “ Proverbial Philo- 
sophy,” “ Stephen Langton,” &c., 1 vol. post 8vo. 5s. 


12 HURST AND BLACKETI’S NEW PUBLICATIONS. 





STUDIES FROM. LIFE. BY THE AUTHOR OF 


“ Joun Hapirax, GenTLeMan,” “ A Woman’s THouGuTs ABOUT 
Women,” &c. 1 vol. 10s. 6d. elegantly bound. 


“Studies from Life is altogether a charming volume, one which all women and most 
men, would be proud to p ”— Chronicl 

“* Without being in the same degree elaborate, either in purpose or plot, as ‘John 
Halifax,’ these ‘ Studies trom Life’ may be pronounced to be equally as clever in econstruc- 
tion and narration. It is one of the most charming features of Miss Muloch’s works that 
they invariably tend to a practical and useful end. Her object is to improve the taste, retine 
the intellect, and touch the heart, and soto act upon all classes of her readers as to make 
them rise from the consideration of her books both wiser and better than they were before 
they began to read them. The ‘ Studies from Life’ will add considerably to the author’s 
well earned reputation.” — Messenger. 


POEMS. BY THE AUTHOR OF “ JOHN HALIFAX, 


GENTLEMAN,” “ A WOMAN’S THOUGHTS ABOUT WOMEN,” &c. 
1 vol. with Illustrations by Brrxer Foster. 


**A volume of poems which will assuredly take its place with those of Goldsmith, Gray, 
and Cowper, on the favourite shelf of every Englishman’s library. We discover in these 
poems all the firmness, vigour, and delicacy of touch which characterise the author’s prose 
works, and in addition, an ineffable tenderness and grace, such as we find in few poetical 
compositions besides those of Tennyson.”’—Illustrated News of the World. 

“We are well pleased with these poems by our popular novelist. They are the expression 
of genuine thoughts, feelings, and aspirations, and the expression is almost always grace- 
ful, musical and well-coloured. A high, pure tone of morality pervades each set of verses, 
and each strikes the reader as inspired by some real event, or condition of mind, and not by 
some idle fancy or fleeting sentiment.””— Spectator. 


A SAUNTER THROUGH THE WEST END. BY 


LEIGH HUNT. lvol. 10s. 6d. 


“The title of this work is unexceptionable, it is happily and appropriately chosen to 
denote the gossipping contents of the book ; light, chatty, and amusing. The author 
—, puts his arm in that of his reader, and as he passes on from Hyde Park Corner 

own Piccadilly or Pall Mall to the Haymarket and Soho, points out the anecdotes con- 
nected with each locality. Touches of quiet, genial, humour, playful interruptions, and 
amusing stories told in a quaint, unaffected style contribute to the attractive conversational 
tone adopted, as he saunters along witb his friend of the hour. The reader will find himself 
agreeably carried on from the first to the last of ‘The Saunter’ by its cheerful tone and 
entertaining gossip.””—Literary Gazette. 

“‘This book is ever fresh. Few men felt, as Leigh Hunt did, the human poetry of 
the memories that crowd upon the lettered and thoughtful rambler about London streets. 
His gentle, genial humour shines in a book like this—worthy companion to his ‘ Town’ 
and * Old Court Suburb’—with light that will not become dim with lapse of time.”—EHzam. 

“If anyof our readers are in want of a genial, gossipping volume, full of pleasant 
historical allusions, and written by one who was deservedly a great favourite in the 
world of letters, we can recommend them Leigh Hunt’s very pleasant ‘ Saunter.’ It will 
suit town or country readers equally well.””—Critic. 


RECOLLECTIONS OF A FOX-HUNTER. BY SCRU- 
TATOR. 1 vol. 
**This is Scrutator’s best book. It isa sort of memoir of the hearty and accomplished 
writer, including pleasant notices of sporting celebrities, such as Assheton Smith, &c., but 
the burden of the volume consists of experience in the hunting-tield—real truths con- 


veying excellent lessons as tohorse and hound, and ensuring for the volume an honoured 
place in every sportsman’s library.”—Era, 


THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A STAGE-COACHMAN. 
By THOMAS CROSS. Dedicated to Henry Villebois, Esq., Master of 
the Norfolk Hounds. 3 vols. with Illustrations. 


“The autobiography of Mr. Cross is a faithful chronicle of a by -gone form of civiliza- 
tion. It is one of Mr. Cross’s chief merits that he tells many a good anecdote in his own 
characteristic way.’— Examiner. 





WORKS OF 


FICTION. 13 





THE LAST OF 
THE MORTIMERS. 


By the Author of “ Marcaret Marr- 
LAND,” &c. 38 vols. 


WHITE AND BLACK. 


A TALE oF THE SouTHERN STATES. 3y. 


THE HOME AT ROSEFIELD. 


By Epwarp Corrina. 3 vols. 


NOTICE TO QUIT. 
By W. G. Witts. 3 vols. 


“A novel of remarkable power. The 
iuterest never flags. Thereis real genius 
in this writer.’’—Speetator. 


EAST AND WEST. 


By J. Frazer Corxkkan. 3 vols. 


“* A good novel. The author has know- 
ledge in abundance.’’—Daily News. 


SIR RICHARD HAMILTON. 


2 vols. 


COUNTY SOCIETY. 


3 vols. 


«* An admirably written and entertaining 
novel.’’—Odserver 


A HERO IN SPITE OF 
HIMSELF. 


By Captain Mayne Rerp. 
From the French of Luis de Bellemare. 
3 vols. 


ALONE IN THE WORLD. 


By the Author of 
“Cousin GEOFFREY,” &c. v. 


PAUL FOSTERS 
DAUGHTER. 


Ry Dutron Cook. 3 vols. 


UNDER THE SPELL. 


By the Author of ‘‘ GRANDMOTHER’S 
Monry,”’ *‘ WILDFLOWER,” &c. 3 vols. 


“The beststory hitherto written bya 
very pleasant novelist.”—Hwxaminer. 


A FAMILY HISTORY. 


By the Author of “ THe QuEEN’s Par- 
DON.” 3 vols. 





NO CHURCH. 


By the Author of “ Hien Cuurca.” 
Third Edition. 3 vols. 


** We advise all who have the oppor- 
tunity to read this book. It is worth the 
study. It isa book to make us feel what 
may be accomplished by each and all of us 
who choose to set about it in a simple, 
earnest spirit, unprejudiced by sectarian 
or party feeling, only having a lively 
faith in God’s mercy, and a fervent 
charity towards our fellow men. Asa love 
story, the book is interesting, and well 
put together.”—Atheneum. 


MY SHARE OF THE 
WORLD. 


By Frances Browne. 3 vols. 


KATHERINE AND HER 
SISTERS. 


By the Author of “Tue DiscipLinE OF 
Lirs,” &c., 3 vols. 
ICE-BOUND. 


By Water Tuornsury. 3 vols. 


“In ‘Ice-Bound’ Mr. Thornbury has 
put forth all his powers, and has pro- 
duced one of the best books of fiction he 
has ever written.”—Messenger. 


THE HOUSE ON THE MOOR. 
By the 
Author of ““ MARGARET MAITLAND,’ 3 v, 


“This story is very interesting and the 
interest deepens as the story proceeds.” — 
Athenaum. 


HOMELESS; or, A -POET’S 
INNER LIFE. 


By M. GoLpscHMIDT. 
Author of “ Jacos BENDIXEN.’’ 3 v. 


THE WORLD’S VERDICT. 


By the Author of ‘‘Morats or May 
Fair,” ‘Creeps,’ &c. 3 vols. 


WHEEL WITHIN WHEEL. 


By the Author of“ Atice WenTworta,” 
“Pas Legs OF BLENDON HALL.” &c. dv. 


** A good novel.” —Atheneum. 


THINKING AND ACTING. 


By A CLERGYMAN’s DAUGHTER. 


Author of ‘‘HeLten LinpsaAy,” Our 
‘< HomeELESs Poor,” &c. 2 vols. 


NOW IN COURSE OF PUBLICATION. 


HURST AND BLACKETT’S STANDARD LIBRARY 
OF CHEAP EDITIONS OF 


POPULAR MODERN WORKS 
ILLUSTRATED EY MILLAIS, LEECH, BIRKET FOSTER, &c, 


Each in a single volume, elegantly printed, bound, and illustrated, price 5s. 
A volume to appear every two months. The following are now ready. 


VOL. L—SAM SLICK’S NATURE AND HUMAN NATURE. 


** The first volume of Messrs. Hurst and Blackett’s Standard Library of Cheap Editions 
of Popular Modern Works forms a very good beginning to what wiil doubtless be a very 
successful undertaking. ‘ Nature and Human Nature’ is one of the best of Sam Slick’s 
witty and humorous productions, and well entitled to the large circulation which it 
cannot fail to obtain in its present convenient and cheap shape. The volume combines 
with the great recommendations of a clear, bold type, and good paper, the lesser, but 
still attractive merits, of being well illustrated and elegantly bound.”— Morning Post. 

“This new and cheap edition of Sam Slick’s popular work will be an acquisition to 
all lovers of wit and humour, Mr. Justice Haliburtun’s writings are so well known to 
the English public that no commendation is needed. The volume is very handsomely 
bound and illustrated, and the paper and type are excellent. It is in every way suited 
for a library edition, and as the names of Messrs. Hurst and Blackett, warrant the 
character of the works to be produced in their Standard Library. we have no doubt the 
proje@é will be eminently successful.’’—Sun. 


VOL. Il.—JOHN HALIFAX, GENTLEMAN. 


“This is a very good and a very interesting work. It is designed to trace the career 
from boyhood to age of a perfect man—a Christian gentleman, and it abounds in incident 
both well and highly wrought. Throughout it is conceived in a high spirit, and written 
with great ability, better than any former work, we think, of its deservedly successful 
author. This cheap and handsome new edition is worthy to pass freely from hand to hand, 
as a gift book in many households,.”’—Ezaminer,. 

“The new and cheaper edition of this interesting work will doubtless meet with great 
success. John Halifax, the hero of this most heautiful story, is no ordinary hero, and this, 
his history, is no ordinary book. It is a full-length portrait of a true gentleman, one of 
nature’s own nobility. It is also the history of a home and a thoroughly English one. 
The work abounds in incident, and many of the scenes are full of graphic power and true 
pathos. It is a book that few will read without becoming wiser and better.’’—Scotsman 


VOL. Ill.—THE CRESCENT AND THE CROSS. 
BY ELIOT WARBURTON. 


“‘Independent of its value as an original narrative, and its useful and interesting 
information, this work is remarkable for the colonring power and play of fancy with 
which its descriptions are enlivened. Among its greatest and most lasting charms is its 
reverent and serious spirit.”’—Quarterly Review 

‘*A book calculated to prove more practically useful was never penned than ‘ The © 
Crescent and the Cross’—a work which surpasses all others in its homage for the sub- 
lime and its jove for the beautifui in those famous regions consecrated to everlasting 
immortality in the annals of the prophets, and which vo other writer has ever depicted 
with a pencil at once so reverent and so picturesque.””— Sun. 


VOL. IV.—NATHALIE. BY JULIA KAVANAGH. 


‘** Nathalie’ is Miss Kavanagh’s best imaginative effort. Its manner is gracious and 
attractive. Its matteris good. A sentiment, a tenderness, are commanded by her which 
are as individual as they are elegant. We should not-soon come to an end were we to 
specify all the delicate touches and attractive pictures which place ‘ Nathalie’ high among 
books of its class.’>—Atheneum. 


VOL. V.—A WOMAN’S THOUGHTS ABOUT WOMEN. 
BY THE AUTHOR OF “JOHN HALIFAX, GENTLEMAN.” 


“ A book of sound counsel. Itis one of the most sensible works of its kind, well-writ- 
ten, true-hearted, and altogether practical. Whoever wishes to give advice to a young lady 
may thank the author for means of doing so.” — Examiner. 


HURST AND BLACKETT’S STANDARD LIBRARY 
OF CHEAP EDITIONS. 


Each in a single volume, elegantly printed, bound, and illustrated, price 5s. 





VOL. VL-ADAM GRAEME, OF MOSSGRAY. 
BY THE AUTHOR OF “MRS, MARGARET MAITLAND.” 


“* Adam Graeme’ is a story awakening genuine emotions of interest and delight by its 
admirable pictures of Scottish life and scenery, The eloquent author sets before us 
the essential attributes of Christian virtue, their deep and silent workings in the heart, 
and their beautiful manifestations in the life, with a delicacy, a power, and a truth which 
can hardly be surpassed.”—Morning Post, 


VOL. VII—SAM SLICKS WISE SAWS 
AND MODERN INSTANCES. 


**The humour of Sam Slick is inexhaustible. He is ever and everywhere a welcome 
visitor; smiles greet his approach, and wit and wisdom hang upon his tongue. 
The present production is remarkable alike for its racy humour, its sound philosophy, 
the felicity of its illustrations, and the delicacy of its satire.”’— Post. 


VOL. VIIL—CARDINAL WISEMAN’S RECOLLECTIONS 
OF THE LAST FOUR POPES. 


‘*A picturesque book on Rome and its ecclesiastical sovereigns, by an eloquent Roman 
Catholic. Cardinal Wiseman has here treated a special subject with so much generality and 
geniality, that his recollections will excite no ill-feeling in those who are most conscientiously 
opposed to every idea of human infallibity represented in Papal domination.””—Atheneum. 


VOL. IX—A LIFE FOR A LIFE. 
BY THE AUTHOR OF “JOHN HALIFAX, GENTLEMAN.” 


“We are always glad to welcome Miss Muloch. She writes from her own convictions, 
and she has the power not only to conceive clearly what it is that she wishes to say, but to 
express it in language effective and vigorous. In ‘A Life for a Life’ she is fortunate in a 
good subject, and she has produced a work of strong effect. The reader having read the 
book through for the story, will be apt (if he be of our persuasion) to return and read again 
many pages and passages with greater pleasure than on a first perusal. The whole book in 
replete with a graceful, tender delicacy ; and in addition to its other merits, it is written in 
good careful English.”—Atheneum. 


VOL. X.—THE OLD COURT SUBURB. BY LEIGH HUNT. 


**A delightful book, of which the charm begins at the first line on the first page, for full of 
quaint and pleasant memories is the phrase that is its title, ‘ The Old Court Suburb.’ Very full 
too, both of quaint and pleasant memories is the line that designates the author. It is the 
name of the most cheerful of chroniclers, the best of remembrancers of good things, the 
most polished and entertaining of educated gossips. ‘The Old Court Suburb’ is a work that 
will be welcome to all readers, and most welcome to those who have a love for the best 
kinds of reading.” —Ewxaminer, 


VOL. XI.—MARGARET AND HER BRIDESMAIDS. 


_ We may save ourselves the trouble of giving any lengthened review of this work, for 
werecommend all who are in search of a fascinating novel to read it for themselves. They 
will find it well worth their while. There are a freshness and originality about it quite 
charming, and there is a certain nobleness in the treatment both of sentiment and incident 
which is not often found.”—Atheneum. * 


VOL. XIIl.—THE OLD JUDGE. BY SAM SLICK. 


“These popular sketches, in which the Author of ‘ Sam Slick’ paints Nova Scotian life, 
form the 12th Volume of Messrs Hurst and Blackett’s Standard Library of Modern Works. 
The publications included in this Library have all been of good quality; many give infor- 
mation while they entertain, and of that class the book before us isa specimen. The 
manner in which the Cheap Editions forming the series is produced deserves especial 
mention. The paper and print are unexceptional; there is a steel engraving in each 
volume, andthe outsides of them will satisfy the purchaser who likes to see a regiment of 
books in handsome uniform.”—Ewxaminer. 


HURST AND BLACKETT’S STANDARD LIBRARY 
OF CHEAP EDITIONS. 


Each in a single volume, elegantly printed, bound, and illustrated, price 5s. 





VOL. XII—DARIEN. BY ELIOT WARBURTON. 


**This last production, from the pen of the author of ‘The Crescent and the Cross,’ 
has the same elements of a very wide popularity. It will please its thousands.”—Glode. 

** We have seldom met with any work in which the realities of history and the poetry 
of fiction were more happily interwoven.’’—Illustrated News. 


VOL. XIV.—FAMILY ROMANCE; OR, DOMESTIC ANNALS 
OF THE ARISTOCRACY. 


EY SIR BERNARD BURKE, ULSTER KING OF ARMS, 


“‘It were impossible to praise too highly as a work of amusement this most interesting 
book, whether we should have regard to its excellent plan or its not less excellent exe- 
cution. It ought to be found on every drawing-room table. Here you have nearly fifty _ 
captivating romances with the pith of all their interest preserved in undiminished poig- 
nancy, and any one may be read in half an hour. It is not the least of their merits that the 
romances are founded on fact—or what, at least, has been handed down for truth by long 
tradition—and the romance of reality far exceeds the romance of fiction.’’—Standard, 


VOL. XV.—THE LAIRD OF NORLAW. 
BY THE AUTHOR OF “MARGARET MAITLAND.” 


“In this delightful work Scottish life and character, in connection with the for- 
tunes of the house of Norlaw, are delineated with truly artistic skill. The plot of 
the tale is simple, but the incidents with which it is interwoven are highly. wrought and 
dramatic in their effect, and altogether there is a fascination about the work which holds 
the attention spell-bound from the first page to the last.””— Herald, 


VOL, XVI.—THE ENGLISHWOMAN IN ITALY. 
BY MRS. G. GRETTON. 


“Mrs. Gretton had opportunities which rarely fall to the lot of strangers of becoming 
acquainted with the inner life and habits of a part of the Italian peninsula which is the 
very centre of the national crisis. We can praise her performance as interesting, unex- 
aggerated, and full of opportune instruction.””—The Times. 


VOL. XVII.—NOTHING NEW. 
BY THE AUTHOR OF *‘JOHN HALIFAX, GENTLEMAN.” 


“* We cordially commend this book, The same graphic power, deep pathos, healt! ful 
sentiment, and masterly execution, which place that beantiful work ‘John Halifax,’ 
among the English Classsics, are everywhere displayed.’’—Chronicle. 


VOL XVIII.—THE LIFE OF JEANNE D’ALBRET. 
BY MISS FREER. 


“We have read this book with great pleasure, and have no hesitation in recommending 
it to general perusal. It reflects the highest credit on the industry andvability of Miss 
Freer. Nothing can be more interesting than herstory cf the life of Jeanne D’Albret, and 
the narrative is as trustworthy as it is attractive.”—Post. 


VOL XIX.—_THE VALLEY OF A HUNDRED FIRES. 
BY THE AUTHOR OF “MARGARET AND HER BRIDESMAIDS.” 


“We know no novel of the. last three or four years to equal this latest production of 
the popular authoress of ‘Margaret and her Bridesmaids.’ If asked to classify it, we 
should give it a place between ‘John Halifax’ and ‘The Caxtons.’ ”—Herald. 


VOL. XX.—THE ROMANCE OF THE FORUM. 
BY PETER BURKE, Serjeant AT Law. (January 1862.) 


“This attractive work will be read with much interest. It contains a great variety o 
singular and highly romantic stories.”—John Bull. } 


24 
Aaeale 





ar > = 
ia rs x 
a 
= A 
7M 
ae 'f , 
te 
n 
r 
i - 
ae 
oh 


- 





FS ae 





oy 
“STHONV-SOV 


Elle 


= 
= 
ov 
ww 


SIP: 
Aavualr? 


= 
aw 
= 
= 
0. 


= 
3 


cad 


we 
> 
S 
yy 


\ LY SS 
SHI AINN IY 


= 
: 
~~ 


OANA 


ted 
= 
= 
S 
= 
“ 


= 
mS 
s 


ONVAATS 


x7 


_s 
iz 
ws 


<Ab-IBRARY¢ 
anion 


ER soyn* 
—_ XELIBRARY.O¢ 
Sic 2 
= = 
2 = 
3 INS 


SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
Return this material to the library 
from which it was borrowed. 


3 eo 
: BO 
“sean Ww” 
a LIBRARY Oe. 2 
a <= 
University of California 


Zena 


AVE UNIVER: 


even 
SS 


ANE: ee: 


Of. 
QF-CALI ORY, 


ee 
aonya20" 





REC'D LD-tipy 
NOV 29) 1996 


NON-Pr’'” 


SEP 2 5/1996 


DUE 2 Wks Phu 











RR Re Ae > 8 F 


Wb bee vcUD 





AVE UNIVERS/, 
Fal hana! 


iene, 


OAV 


oa 
— 
cs 


AU! LALIT UNA 


CUSHININ 


AC LIBR 


AME UNIVER. WY ANULLES 
Eas at mal 


Vi 
S 
oo 
=. 


OF CALIFORY, 


SHIN 


S 
ache 
a! 


QF-CAL FORYs 


“\ 


USHA 


“<QELUBR 
S44 


ex: 


J}JONV:-SOVS 


cz, arnt 


ELIBRARYOS, 





CONT ns 


VE YOITV)-30* 


OF: SY, 





Zsquaoy soi 


uve 


aN 1 E-UNIV ERS, 


and Ae 


ZONV Sov 
aut pee 


“Maaiv)-40> 


OF 


ENG Lawnte ret 


STIONV-SOVS 


«ELIBRARYO 


Oh 


VUOATW)-4I0 
OF-CALI eg 


aS 


AP tvs Puyuce 


ATIEUI VEN 


deeb Bae 


cane paki 3 
EP) ee = 





Be 


al 


Zena aor 


OF CALIFOR 
caret 


gelvens 


TASHININT IDS 


AE LIBRARY.¢ 


$ 


Se 
Pare 


“YOST 10° 
a. OF CALIFOR A, 


1): 
+ 


AWE UNIVERS 


SS 


Zens 


%0; Tavera” 


AOS: gen 


% 


~ OF CALIFORY, 
Orava 


oA 


TOSHIAIND: ys 


F, 
Z 
= 


OF-CALIFOR 
“onuvuana® 


f 


ay 


TASININN: ahs 


MAELIBRAR 


t Ag 


10S saan 


a 


WAOAITV)-30 
OF CALIFOR, 


ZB 


VE-UNIVERS/, 


- 


ONY 


pid ANGELES. 
SF Pee 


aun 


s 


Zeros 


YOAAVHAN: we 


gt ee 


ARUBRARYO,, 


‘masons 
itt sae 


uaa, 
zis ny).40 


STITINV-SOVS 


ZREUBANY OE, 


ee 


Us 


TT ae a 
OFCALFORY, 


Onavuanye 


2 
{ 


At: epee 
404 NG 


2 
a 
Wuoanv)-40% 


At-IBRARY.OA, 


e) 
2 
é 
by 


ARELIBRARYOs, 
4 ic’ = 


we 


Wyoany)-40° 
OF CAL] ORY, 


HANNIS™ 


oe 
ASHNINNIW. 


_— 
A 
ere 
cy 
= 
& 


gx 0F CAL! FORYy, 


OF-CALI FOR, 


IT 


000 047 688 7 


“YOAMVIAT” 


_gnlWsanctes 


Set 





“asannn ge” 
gylos: ee 


3 OF CALF, 
ert te y 


AMEDNIVERS?,, 


Zasannnas 


<WELIBRARYOe- 


$ 


Hu osnva4o 
OF CAL! \% 


Ss 


sangre: 
a 


OANA ww 


B 
5 
& 


= 
SS Sonuvuaiasy 


OVER ANY: 


% 


USRNIN: At 


ae UIBRARY.Op, 
CT Vice 


Wy 


AplOS-ANGELES. 


“-ANEUNIVERS, 


VORA. 


a 
ot 


“A NLOSANCELE Rs, 


“at BRARY: vv 


~ 


AAELIBRARYOs, 


= 


Univer 





